Pope Francis Washed The Feet Of 12 Young Detainees

[Apotheoun]

Pope John Paul II in his letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis reaffirmed the Church's traditional practice of reserving priestly ordination to men alone, saying basically that he did not have the power to alter the practice. That was a true act of humility, from a very humble man, for he recognized not only his own personal weakness, but the weakness of his office.

[Fidei Defensor]

Pope John Paul II in his letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis reaffirmed the Church's traditional practice of reserving priestly ordination to men alone, saying basically that he did not have the power to alter the practice. That was a true act of humility, from a very humble man, for he recognized not only his own personal weakness, but the weakness of his office.

I'm not suggesting the Church ordain women. We're talking about washing feet as a sign of service. Unless there is some new rite of ordination involving the washing of feet, washing a woman's feet isn't destroying anything.

[Apotheoun]

He can't if he is empowered by God to be guided in faith and morals. That's the definition of infallibility. Of course, I know you don't believe in that (which is why I continually try to figure out why you bother trying to be in communion with the Catholic Church if you don't actually believe a lot of what it believes… but that's between you and God.)

 

I hardly think washing women's feet is destroying the faith. I don't recall Jesus saying "I swear to my Father that if you even dare wash anyone but men's feet I will personally come down here and smack some bros."

I know that you hardly think that it is important. But the liturgy is the apex of the Christian life, and it is something given to the Church, it is not the Church's own creation. No one can alter the practices (liturgical or otherwise) established by Christ in the Holy Gospels, and on the night of His betrayal Christ instituted the priesthood in a twofold fashion. First by washing the feet of his Apostles and making them priestly servants to the members of His body the Church; and second, by establishing the Eucharistic sacrifice of His body and blood. Both of these actions of Christ made the Apostles priests of the New Covenant, and no one has the power to alter the signs established by Christ the Lord Himself. No one, not even the pope. After all, the pope is not all powerful - as John Paul II showed when he said he did not have the power to approve the ordination of women to the priesthood - and so he (i.e., the pope) cannot do whatever he wants, because like all Christians the pope is bound by what Christ did. Jesus, not the pope, is Lord. 

Edited March 29, 2013 by Apotheoun

[KnightofChrist]

If the Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and morals, I would argue that he can indeed change tradition.

The Pope, and the Magisterium are the servants of Tradition and Scripture. Not the other way around.

[Fidei Defensor]

I know that you hardly think that it is important. But the liturgy is the apex of the Christian life, and it is something given to the Church, it is not the Church's own creation. No one can alter the practices (liturgical or otherwise) established by Christ in the Holy Gospels, and on the night of His betrayal Christ instituted the priesthood in a twofold fashion. First by washing the feet of his Apostles and making them priestly servants to the members of His body the Church; and second, by establishing the Eucharistic sacrifice of His body and blood. Both of these actions of Christ made the Apostles priests of the New Covenant, and no one has the power to alter the signs established by Christ the Lord Himself. No one, not even the pope. After all, the pope is not all powerful - as John Paul II showed when he said he did not have the power to approve the ordination of women to the priesthood - and so he (i.e., the pope) cannot do whatever he wants, because like all Christians the pope is bound by what Christ did. Jesus, not the pope, is Lord. 

And again I will say, Papal infallibility is guidance by the Holy Spirit to always speak truth in regards to the Faith.  Pope John Paul II wasn't admitting his lack of authority, he was conforming to what God has invested him with.  The Priesthood is indeed something that cannot be changed from what was instituted by Jesus.  Saying the Pope doesn't have the authority to change it is like asking if God can make a stone so heavy he can't lift it — it's non sensical because there is no reason the Pope would ever change it, it is a matter of divinely guided Faith.

[Fidei Defensor]

edit: on second thought, i retract and apologize. Its none of my business. Sorry.

Edited March 29, 2013 by tardis ad astra

[KnightofChrist]

On second thought, I'm not really all that interested in continuing to defend my understanding of Papal authority, because I really don't care.

But know this — as far as I'm concerned, you believe whatever you want. But I see this "communion" with the Church of Rome as nothing but lip service. You even remotely hold the same beliefs as the Roman Church on many things. And as has been pointed out to me far too many times, you can't serve two masters. Either you believe something or you don't, and you can't simultaneously claim to be in communion with the Roman Church and then say that it holds views contrary to your own.

So say what you want. I don't really care. But I will always see hypocrisy as you serve two masters.

What a very likeable non-catholic thing to say!

[Fidei Defensor]

What a very likeable non-catholic thing to say!

Speak the truth in all things. I learned that when I was a Catholic.

[KnightofChrist]

Speak the truth in all things. I learned that when I was a Catholic.

I don't think you comprehend the complexities of the relationship between the Roman rite and the Eastern rites in union with the Pope. The views Apo expresses on PM are common among those in the Eastern rites and Rome is well aware of their views. I have seen nothing from Rome claiming hypocrisy.

[Fidei Defensor]

I don't think you comprehend the complexities of the relationship between the Roman rite and the Eastern rites in union with the Pope. The views Apo expresses on PM are common among those in the Eastern rites and Rome is well aware of their views. I have seen nothing from Rome claiming hypocrisy.

see my edited post.

[Nihil Obstat]

In my personal opinion, or at least from my perception, Apo's position does not recognize any meaningful distinction between simple human custom, and ecclesial Tradition.
On the other hand, he knows much more than me and probably would beat me if we were to debate that point.

[KnightofChrist]

see my edited post.

Thank you. I would but am unable to edit my post with your original quote.

God bless brother.

[Anastasia13]

Deleted. Not good to have multiple pages open at once.

Edited March 29, 2013 by Light and Truth

[Apotheoun]

In my personal opinion, or at least from my perception, Apo's position does not recognize any meaningful distinction between simple human custom, and ecclesial Tradition.
On the other hand, he knows much more than me and probably would beat me if we were to debate that point.

Jesus is the one who established the Pedilavium, so it is not a mere "human custom," and the liturgy is meant to commemorate His institution of that rite. To alter the rite involves destroying the logic of the ceremony (i.e., of the divinely instituted signs), while also causing confusion, both among Catholics and non-Catholics.

Edited March 29, 2013 by Apotheoun

[dominicansoul]

although it bothers me a bit that he washed the feet of a female, and this traditionally symbolizes Christ's washing of the apostles, (the first priests) and tonite is all about the Institution of the Eucharist and how we are able to continue to receive the Eucharist (through priests)...

 

 

 

...I couldn't help but think how the Pope may have changed these troubled youth for the better....possibly...saved their souls today....