I interpret St John's language, all that taking off and putting on of vestments as a priestly act meant by the Apostle to remind his readers of the institution of the Aaronic priesthood. I used to wash any foot that turned up but now in conscience I think it would be a denial of what Christ intended and I can't do that. I am grateful I have the freedom to express my conscience. Before the invention of Pius XII the rite happen outside of Mass, and anyone could be involved, within Mass it takes on a Eucharistic meaning.
I have been fortunate, there are many things I do or don't do because of conscience. Though I have used it I really feel uncomfortable about using that trattoria-written-back-of-a menu Eucharistic Prayer (EPII), in fact I have a problem with using one other than the Roman Canon. I don't consider them invalid, just not of the Latin Rite which since the time of St Gregory used this text. They are part of the hermeneutic of rupture, in conscience I don't believe it is possible to be Catholic and to be part of the rupture.
I know it is a bit of a convoluted conscience but it is mine.
I think it is very interesting that Cardinal Sarah felt it necessary to 'clarify' this issue, and to underline my right to be a conscientious objector, Will other Cardinals suggest that there is a conscience clause with regard the issuing of the Holy Father's post - Synod document?
As much as I might welcome conscientious objection I can't help pushing people to the point of making such an objection is the beginning of schism. Yet if bishops and priests do not have a sensitive conscience have they anything to offer?
An interesting video on the liturgy by CNS in which the scholar Father Jeremy Driscoll OSB, corrects some contemporary liturgical errors.