“I have decided:” Francis introduces massive liturgical novelty as personal whim January 21, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Liturgy, Papa, persecution, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
So the inevitable has happened, and Francis has further paved the way for fake women priests by formally directing the women’s feet may be washed during the Maundy Thursday Mass in the universal Church. It is assumed this does not apply to the Ecclesia Dei communities, but I don’t know on what sure basis such assumptions stand. The formal declaration is worded in such a way that this act would require a direct repudiation by a successor to repeal: something the conservativish popes since the Council have been reticent to do. Some details via the Vatican Information Service:
Vatican City, 21 January 2016 (VIS) – The Holy Father has written a letter, dated 20 December and published today, to Cardinal Robert Sarah, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, in which he decrees that from now on, the people chosen for the washing of the feet in the liturgy of Holy Thursday may be selected from all the People of God, and not only men and boys.
The Pope writes to the cardinal that he has 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”. [Certainly the foot washing had that intent. But it also had the intent of confirming the male apostles as the heirs of Christ’s salvific action and the inheritors of his Body on Earth, the Church. This action is a huge demonstration of the all-male priesthood intended by Christ, and by stripping it away, Pope Francis now severely undercuts the popular rationale for the male priesthood. I cannot believe this to be incidental.]
“After careful consideration”, he continues, “I have decided to make a change to the Roman Missal. I therefore decree that the section according to which those persons chosen for the Washing of the feet must be men or boys, so that from now on the Pastors of the Church may choose the participants in the rite from among all the members of the People of God. I also recommend that an adequate explanation of the rite itself be provided to those who are chosen”. [This “may” will manifest in all non-traditional parishes as a “must.” I would be shocked if 1 in 100 Novus Ordo parishes did not have women in the lineup this Holy Thursday]
The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has today published a decree on the aforementioned rite, dated 6 January 2016, the full text of which is published below:
“The reform of the Holy Week, by the decree Maxima Redemptionis nostrae mysteria of November 1955, provides the faculty, where counselled by pastoral motives, to perform the washing of the feet of twelve men during the Mass of the Lord’s Supper, after the reading of the Gospel according to John, as if almost to represent Christ’s humility and love for His disciples. [Nice little bit of return fire there from Cardinal Sarah of the CDW, attempting to undo a bit of the damage by plainly laying out why Christ had only men in the Upper Room and why he only washed male feet – because that was His specific intent, not because he was limited by any constraints of the times. What a ludicrous proposition to impose such a restriction on the God of the Universe who had worked countless miracles before hundreds of thousands of souls!]
I also included that last bit to say this: we can see where even the well-meaning reforms of the 1950s could lead. Some of those reforms under Pius XII were returns to ancient practice, to be sure, but others were great novelties. There were reasons they had been abrogated or diminished over the Church’s long history. When meddling with ancient, infinitely sacred things, unintended consequences tend to abound.
I wonder if more priests of relative orthodoxy will now, following the example of a few already, determine it pastorally unhelpful to do the foot washing?
Will this be one of Francis’ “grand gestures” that prove difficult or impossible to reform? Do you think this is just a bit of multi-kulti pandering, or is this an act deliberately intended to fundamentally weaken the logic behind the male priesthood?
Do priests who have steadfastly held to the liturgical rites as written in spite of great pressure to emulate the Franciscan example now feel total fools, having the rug pulled out from underneath them?
Note that Francis remains disobedient to the liturgical norms even as he has modified them: he speaks of inviting the “people of God,” which means souls in union with the Church, to the Mandatum, but he himself has used those not in such union, including practicing muslims.
Also note that the constant apologists for the papacy are now telling us how wonderful a gift to the Church this act is, even declaring, as a good reason for the reform (and I am not making this up), that women’s feet are cute. It is amazing the lengths to which these folks will go to justify the unjustifiable. It leaves me wondering the extent to which their adherence to the Novus Ordo (and I mean no disrespect to those here who have no option) informs this seeming willingness to see the Liturgy continuously reformed out of existence.
Bergoglio has been doing this for a looong time. There are numerous photos of him as Archbishop of Buenos Aires washing the feet of women, whether Catholic or not (and typically not). How many of those subsequently converted by this “grand example” is not known. A small sampling below:
I have to say to the cardinals who elected this pope……really?!? This guy was so known for who and what he was, we have the testimony of the “St. Gallen” group of collaboration in destroying Benedict and electing this guy, and yet most cardinals still went along with it. Were 2/3 really in on the plot? Or is my surmise right, that half or more of even cardinals are just reeds shaking in the wind, blowing whichever way they see as favorable for them from one minute to the next, with no real faith or even backbone to guide them?