It has been widely reported that, when he was still the cardinal archbishop of Buenos Aires, the future Pope Francis washed the feet of women during the Mass of the Lord's Supper.
Now he has done so as pope.
Here are some thoughts on Pope Francis's decision and what it means.
This Year's Mass of the Lord's Supper
It was surprising but not surprising when the Holy See announced that Pope Francis had chosen to celebrate this year's Mass of the Lord's Supper not in one of the papal basilicas of Rome but, instead, in its juvenile prison.
That's precisely the kind of gesture that we have come to expect from the new pope in the short time we've been getting to know him.
It's not traditional, but it's humble and evangelistic.
And it corresponds to Jesus' remarks that, when we visit those in prison, we are spiritually visiting him (Matthew 25:36-40).
It's also in keeping with things he's done before, such as holding the service in a maternity hospital in Buenos Aires in 2005.
So what happened with the footwashing ceremony this year?
The BBC is reporting:
During Thursday's intimate service, the Pope washed and kissed the feet of 12 young detainees to replicate the Bible's account of Jesus Christ's gesture of humility towards his 12 apostles on the night before he was crucified.
The 12 inmates included two girls, one Italian Catholic and one of Serbian Muslim origin, local prison ombudsman Angiolo Marroni said ahead of the ceremony.
That's certainly a dramatic gesture.
A Muslim Girl?
It had been announced, in advance, that the young people who were going to be participating in the ceremony would be coming from different religious backgrounds, so this wasn't a total surprise, but it was a striking choice.
What should we make of it?
I think we should understand it in the same light that explains the initial decision to celebrate this Mass in a youth prison: Pope Francis wants to reach out to the young people in the prison and bring them the light of Christ.
He is taking the role of a servant and an evangelist.
What he is doing hopefully will have a profound impact on the lives of these young people, hopefully setting them on the right path both in terms of civil law and in terms of their faith life.
He's also, by this action, showing the world that he takes his role seriously as a servant of all people and an evangelist to all people.
Washing and kissing the feet of a Muslim girl in jail signifies that rather dramatically.
It also raises questions.
Questions
Here are a few:
- What do the Church's liturgical documents say about footwashing?
- How does Pope Francis's decision relate to this?
- If the pope is going beyond what the Roman Missal says, can the pope just do that?
- If he can do it, can others?
- What should we expect in the future?
- How should we understand the rite in light of this?
Let's look at each of these . . .
1. What do the Church's liturgical documents say about footwashing?
There are two key places one should look for an understanding of the footwashing ceremony. The first is found in the document that governs the celebrations connected with Easter, which is called Paschales Solemnitatis. According to this document:
51. The washing of the feet of chosen men which, according to tradition, is performed on this day, represents the service and charity of Christ, who came "not to be served, but to serve." This tradition should be maintained, and its proper significance explained.
Please take note of the highlighted phrase. It will be important later.
The second document is the Roman Missal, which states:
10. After the Homily, where a pastoral reason suggests it, the Washing of Feet follows.
The men who have been chosen are led by the ministers to seats prepared in a suitable place. Then the Priest (removing the chasuble if necessary) goes to each one, and, with the help of the ministers, pours water over each one's feet and then dries them.
Meanwhile some of the following antiphons or other appropriate chants are sung.
[Antiphons omitted]
13. After the Washing of Feet, the Priest washes and dries his hands, puts the chasuble back on, and returns to the chair, and from there he directs the Universal Prayer.
The Creed is not said.
There are several things to note here:
- The text does speak of "men" having their feet washed. The Latin term that is used in the original (viri) indicates adult males specifically.
- This rite is optional; it is done "where a pastoral reason suggests it."
- There is no specific number of men specified. It does not say twelve men are to have their feet washed. How many is a decision open to the celebrating priest.
- Although I have omitted the antiphons for reasons of space, none of them speak of the "apostles." They either use the more generic term "disciples" or they do not mention the disciples at all but rather Jesus' example for us or his commandment to love one another.
2. How does Pope Francis's decision relate to this?
Pope Francis's decision goes beyond what is provided in these texts in at least one respect: Instead of washing the feet of adult males, he decided to wash the feet of young women as well.
The fact that one of them was a Muslim does not go beyond what the letter of the text specifies, since it does not indicate that the chosen men are to be Catholics (or other Christians).
One would expect that they would be Catholics, and one could argue that this is implied in the text, but since Pope Francis is now the individual who is ultimately responsible for interpreting the text, if he judges that it does not prevent washing the feet of non-Christians then it doesn't.
His decision does go beyond the text in the matter of men, however.
3. Can Pope Francis just do things that aren't provided for in the law?
Yes. The pope does not need anybody's permission to make exceptions to how ecclesiastical law relates to him. He is canon law's ultimate legislator, interpreter, and executor.
And it's not uncommon, at least in recent decades, for a pope to make exceptions to the law in how papal ceremonies are performed.
John Paul II frequently held liturgies that departed from what the Church's liturgical texts provide, particularly when he was making a form of dramatic outreach, and Pope Francis seems to be following in his footsteps.
4. If he can do this, can others?
Technically speaking, no. If a pope judges that, due to the particular circumstances of a papal celebration, an exception should be made, that does not create a legal precedent allowing others to do so.
After all, not everybody is in the same situation as the pope. They don't have the same pastoral circumstances or the same legal authority, and so if he makes an exception in his application of the law in his own case, it does not create a legal precedent for others doing so who do not have his circumstances or authority.
On the other hand, if people see the pope doing something, they are naturally going to treat it as an example to be followed.
People naturally imitate their leader. That's the whole point behind Jesus washing the disciples' feet. He was explicitly and intentionally setting an example for them.
Pope Francis knows that he is setting an example.
It has been reported, e.g., that when he was told that he didn't need to pay his pre-conclave hotel bill that he insisted on doing so, saying expressly that, as the pope, he needed to set an example.
5. What should we expect in the future?
It's hard to say.
On a practical level, I would expect that there will be more priests who do things similar to what the pope has done.
On a legal level, the matter is more uncertain.
We may get a clarification of the matter, perhaps from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.
I suspect that, if we do get a clarification, it is likely to be one allowing more flexibility in terms of who has their feet washed.
Already, the Congregation for Divine Worship has, apparently, indicated privately that a bishop can wash women's feet if he feels a pastoral exception should be made. At least, that's what Cardinal O'Malley indicated he was told when he asked them about the subject (see here for more info).
We'll have to see, though. They may not say anything.
6. How should we understand the rite in light of Pope Francis's action?
There has been a tendency in some circles to see the footwashing rite as linked specifically to the twelve apostles, and this has been presented as a reason why it should be limited to men.
In the past, I myself promoted that understanding, because that is how it was first explained to me.
It's a natural understanding, particularly when twelve individuals are chosen to have their feet washed, and in an age when altar girls and women's ordination have been receiving attention.
However, as I've looked more closely at the texts, other elements have struck me:
- First, as we mentioned, the number twelve is not mandated in the text. The number is the choice of the celebrating priest. That, right there, loosens the connection of the rite with the apostles.
- Second, this event is recorded only in John's Gospel, and John does not describe Jesus as washing the feet of "the apostles." Instead, John says that he washed the feet of "his disciples." Disciples is a more generic term than apostles. Although they are sometimes used synonymously, Jesus had many more disciples than he did apostles.
- Third, none of the antiphons sung during this rite (which might give clues to its meaning) speak of the "apostles." They either use the more generic term "disciples" or they do not mention the disciples at all but rather Jesus' example for us and his commandment to love one another.
- Fourth, none of the explanatory texts for this rite explain it in terms of an action directed specifically to the apostles.
51. The washing of the feet of chosen men which, according to tradition, is performed on this day, represents the service and charity of Christ, who came "not to be served, but to serve." This tradition should be maintained, and its proper significance explained.
This indicates that we should understand that this rite "represents the service and charity of Christ"--not as a statement about ordination to the priesthood. To read it that way goes beyond what the texts indicate.
According to the texts, our focus should be on the service and charity displayed in the rite and how we should serve and be charitable to one another.
The rite should not be read in the matrix of issues like women's ordination. This rite isn't about ordination, the way the Church understands it.
At least that's how Pope Francis seems to understand it.
A Final Thought
I'd add one more thing, which is that it's understandable that we might be perplexed or concerned about this.
After all, we do live in an age in which authentic Catholic teaching involving gender is under assault. The last few years have seen a lot of flashpoints involving the idea of women's ordination.
It's understandable that issues like altar servers and footwashing would be viewed in that matrix.
At the same time, we should keep this in perspective.
The footwashing ceremony is only an optional rite, and it was only made part of this Mass in 1955 by Pope Pius XII, so it's modern liturgical use doesn't even go back that far.
The question of who serves at altar is far more closely connected to who is likely to think about becoming a priest than the question of who has their feet washed on Holy Thursday.
If the Holy See were to decide to expand how the law is to be applied in this case, it would not signal the end of the world.
If the Church can survive altar girls, it can certainly survive a change in the discipline regarding who has their feet washed.
By the Way . . .
At 9:00 a.m. (Eastern) on Easter Sunday, I'm going to be sending a special communique to the Secret Information Club.
It's on 7 reasons why Jesus rose from the dead (defending the Resurrection).
I only send this mailing out once a year.
Current club members will automatically receive it.
If you're not yet a member and you'd like to receive a copy, be sure to sign up by then.
Just use the handy form below . . .
What Now?
If you like the information I've presented here, you should join my Secret Information Club.
If you're not familiar with it, the Secret Information Club is a free service that I operate by email.
I send out information on a variety of fascinating topics connected with the Catholic faith.
In fact, the very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is information about what Pope Benedict said about the book of Revelation.
He has a lot of interesting things to say!
If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign-up form:
Just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com if you have any difficulty.
In the meantime, what do you think?
View Comments
Comments
Join the Discussion
I think that the fact the Church calls this rite “Mandatum” has a little something to do with the priesthood.
As a church trained latinist and having studied with the pope’s own authority on such matters (including jpii’s and bxi’s) please allow me to point out that ‘vir’ absolutely refers to men and women on many occasions and is therefore ambiguous. In sacred and secular texts, ‘vir’ in many, many, cases encompasses all people. This is a simple outgrowth of a patristic culture (on the contrary, the corresponding word for women in Latin does not ever encompass men because that historically was deemed to be derogatory towards men -that tradition stands.)
I’m not saying these papal actions or explanations are right or wrong, only the facts of the language and subsequently their inferences; it’s erroneous to hang your hat on ‘vir’!
Thanks a lot, Traditio.
Fidelis Agbaps, The book one can read this in is called The “Diologue of St. Catherine of Sienna”. St. Catherine of Sienna has been declared a Doctor of the Church. Her Diologue with God has been my favorite spiritual book for 30 years. It is amazing! God reveals to St. Catherine everything about how he deals with us. When one reads it one can recognize clearly how God works in our lives, how he deals with us in every matter and circumstance. Reading it is as if God were speaking to us personaly. One cannot say enough about St. Catherine’s spirituality. The Diologue is available from many book companies. I assure you, you will not be disappointed.
Traditio:
I am interested in reading about St. Catherine of Siena and ways to discern inspirations that you talked about. What books of Catherine of Siena can I read about this?
Thanks.
Michael, Its funny that you said what you did. Long ago I read in the lives of the Saints about a man who said very, very similar to what you said. He fell off his horse from immediate death. God in his justice has done such things throughout the history of Mankind. I also read a story about St. Joan of Arc. A British soldier insulted her virginity which caused the Saint great grief. Moments later the insulter fell off his horse as he died an immediate unexplicable death. Hope your still alive to read this.
Casting Crowns, St. Catherine of Sienna a Mystic and Doctor of the Church had this revealed by God to her. She asked God how do we discern whether an inspiration comes from God and when it comes from the devil. God answered that when receiving an inspiration, if our first reaction is joy, followed afterward by confusion then it comes from satan. When we have an inspiration and our first reaction is fear, followed by a great desire to love and serve God, then it is an inspiration that comes from God. A simple rule that practiced becomes perfect.
Casting Crowns, I learned from a Traditionalist priest years ago that emotionalism is a deceit from the devil. Ven. Pope Paul Vl addressing those of the Charismatic Renewal had this to say, “Many today claim that the Spirit speaks to them. If this spirit of which they speak says anything contrary to the teachings of the Church, I declare, it is not the Holy Spirit”. We as Catholics live by Faith, by all the Church teaches, and not by emotions. When I said that through Mental Prayer God reveals his secrets to us. It is not by emotions. I have had thoughts enter my mind while thinking of God. Very soon afterwards I find out that that very thought is actually an official teaching of the Church. This is how I know that it came from the Holy Ghost himself. Deo Gratias!
This… is one of the funniest things I have ever read…
I can’t believe you would spend so much time and energy trying to figure out “how should we understand the pope washing some feet”
You people put way too much stock in magic and ritual.
Would Jesus care about this silly discussion, or would he care about you helping those in need? Wow.
@Traditio: Alone time with the Lord is both through prayer and meditation on His word. Do we surrender ourselves daily to Him and in what He desires? You cannot trust emotions but rather in the knowledge, grace and direction the Spirit reveals. Is what He says and what He leads you to consistent with His character? This is very key. We know His character because He reveals Himself in His word (Hebrews 1:1) and in the person of Christ His Son in the gospel.
.
Emotions and feelings you cannot be sure about. Better to go with what you “know”—the character of God and how He operates. Learn from the Scriptures and how He dealt with people in both the OT and NT. Ask Him what He is saying to you and to make His way clear for you. If you are thinking of taking a certain path or action, ask Him to shut it down if this is not His will for you. That’s part of submission and surrendering your life to Him. People make all kinds of decisions in life without ever asking God what He thinks. We know He desires the best for us but so many people leave Him out of the equation and choose foolishly based only upon feelings and emotions. Always seek God’s opinion for your life whether you are 8 or 88.
.
Psalm 119:105 underscores the importance of knowing Him in His word. “Thy word is lamp unto my feet and light unto my path.” It is the wise man or woman who always seeks God’s perspective about everything in life.
Casting Crowns, “But do you listen”, Yes I do, there are different forms of prayer in the Church. I practice vocal prayer, Prayer of attente (be stout hearted and wait for the lord), and there is what is called Mental prayer ect…. Mental Prayer is thinking of God and meditating on what he says, what he is about, what he asks of us ect… When we pray in this manner God speaks to us and we listen with joy. The Holy Rosary is both a prayer of Vocal and Mental which is what makes it so unique. Its speaking and listening to God at the same time. Now I ask you. How do you talk to God. How do you, listen to God? I would appreciate an answer.
@Traditio: You’re doing the talking, but are you also listening?
Casting Crowns, Yes I ask God concerning what he asks of me. Many times through out the day and night, I pray this prayer, “Thy will be done”.
@Traditio: You have zeal and passion so God can definitely use you to further His Kingdom. Rather than you leading,—better if you pray and ask God to do the leading for you life. Have you ever asked the Lord if your pursuits are what He wants? It’s possible He has a different path for you in His service. You won’t ever know if you don’t ask Him. Remember, Paul also thought He was doing God’s will until that day on the Damascus road.
Sunetra Latimer, I am a Traditionalist and it is from that that I have learned about what love truly is. Not that type of modernist empty love. It is sad that after Vatican Council ll the Church has been plagued with false prophets. They robbed so many people of the true catholic Faith without which one does not know what love is truly about. I know many modernist Catholics who speak love, love, love, but in fact live their Catholic faith without the love that is God himself. They only talk love but in practice despise it.
Casting Crowns, I have never sought your patience so if you have lost patience with me, Oh Well! I have stated that I am a Traditionalist Catholic. The reason why I’m Traditionalist is because I desire to posses not just a fragment of the Church but to posses all her spiritual treasures. That is something that liberal Catholicism is devoid of. I was brought up in the post V2 Church and it was a Church without God. I pity you for the false Church you have embraced but you have a freewill. So if you don’t want all that Christ has to offer through his Church that is your choice. Don’t try to make choices for me, I have a freewill also and I have chosen to posses all of the Church and not just a mere modernist fragment.
What Pope Francis was doing like now is Show the picture of Jesus who have done many things that Love is most importance and do not follow the taxs that in the rule of Jewish but the love that is the things need to be done… I’m proud of Pope Francis… May be he will be ban of the people who try to keep the tradition more then love.
Sorry Lord i just want to defend Your messages.
@Traditio: Jesus taught us how to react when encountering individuals like yourself by shaking the dust from our feet and moving on.
.
I’ve granted you more patience than Jesus did with the High Priest Caiaphas (a Jew like Himself). Caiaphas (a church legalist like you) wasn’t interested in anything Jesus had to say. The gospel says Jesus actually engaged Pilate in a decent conversation because He knew Pilate was interested. So, too, the longest conversation recorded in the gospel was between Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well. Why? because Jesus takes time for those interested in hearing truth.
.
What your excuse, Traditio? Romans 2:1 says “You are without excuse and thus condemn yourself.”
Casting Crowns, You should quit those liberal glory and praise meetings, they have completely muddled up your mind. All you say about my Catholic beliefs is twisted, bent, smashed, misrepresented, false ect… Why not worship God in “spirit and in truth”. You should try it, try going to Adoration and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, you know, those legalistic things in the Church. How great it is to receive a personal blessing from God himself. You condemn what you do not know. You do not know because your hanging around with those “spirit of Vatican ll” fanatics. They are now officially a dead cancer in the Church. They are bulching out their final end. Come back to life.
Hello Jimmy Akin,
I agree with your judgment that Pope Francis takes his views as evangelist to all people very seriously. I also feel that the example he is setting is one of love and service, not trifling on the details of a ceremony. Its an example of how we should live every day, not just on Holy Thursday.
Would you mind reading my blog at [http://n00b123.blogspot.com? I would like to have your perspective.
Eric Anderson
eandersonengl250@gmail.com
The Green Room at Iowa State University
@Traditio: Why did Jesus not build into the gospel all you are frothing about? He made the gospel quite simple to understand. On the other hand, you have created an idol of worship you want everyone else to also bow down to of all manner of practices and rituals.
.
You talk about authenticity. Then you should be in favor of priests walking backward into church and only entering the tabernacle once per year to distribute communion rather than daily. If you want authenticity, then follow Levitcal rituals since they are the original “traditions.”
.
How do Faustina, Sr. Lucia, Pio, John Paul II, Pius XII, Veronica, the Shroud and “whose” feet are being washing affect your own personal salvation? They don’t. These people will not be standing next to you at the judgment. You will be alone before Christ. In Matthew 12 Jesus says that “every man will give an account.” He is *not* talking about rituals, tradition and doctrine which had YET to be established. He is talking about Himself and that which He taught.
.
Observances of tradition are fine, but they are no substitute for placing Christ first in your life.
.
Face the fact that you don’t really trust that Jesus gave us everything we need to know for salvation when He came in the incarnate. For some reason, Jesus isn’t enough for Traditio. You require more and more legalism which no man can keep. You can’t get there by keeping rules? Is keeping 70% enough or does God grade “on the curve?” The gospel means “Good News”—so where in Traditio’s world is that good news? To the contrary, it sounds more like a burden.
.
People of your bent have no assurance of the gospel so you keep working at “keeping church rules.” Did I do enough works? How many works is needed? Did I give enough to the church?,—St. Vincent de Paul?,—Catholic Charities?, Retired Priests?, Peter’s Pence and other 2nd Collections? How much is enough? Did I do enough? You don’t get that it’s not about what you do, but moreover, it’s what Christ has already done FOR you.
.
Observance of rules and obedience is a good thing but not when they supersede Christ in your heart. When He is Lord in your heart, you will live and obey Him —but NOT because of legalism.
.
You really seem to have little or no undestanding of grace.
Larry, Ever heard of Fr. Nicholas Grunner? He was once hailed as a Fatima expert, respected by many. He began to spread falsehoods about what Sister Lucia Dos Santos one of the Fatima seers was saying. Rome called him in to give an answer to this and ordered him to recant. Rome suspended him and he is now in the final stage of excommunication. Rome has done this to protect the purity of the private revelation of the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima. Welcome to authentic Catholicism.
Larry, The Church teaches that if a private revelation reveals a new dogma then the private revelation is false. What the Church approves of, and someone disapproves going over the Church’s head, its called disobedience and is not tolerated by the Church. As for Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich, who in the hec is Brentano. First who is he and what business is it of his to defy what the Church approves. Throw his books away. Fast! I have told you no lies, people judge according to the way they think. So that makes you the lier, its very evident. Your “patience is at an end”, its very obvious. So now I am a hypocrate? Is it because I don’t give you blind obediance, your not even worth listening to, I’m just having fun with you while edifying my neighbor not to put up with your type of Catholicism. As for my health it is my Pancreas and by Divine law it is not the organ I think with. Who are you to correct me? I’ll tell you, A Nobody! I am a Novus Ordo Traditionalist just like Bl. John Paul the Great and the one day to be Doctor of the Church Pope Benedict XVl. And I would not give up my faith for any denier, who denies for the mere sake of denying. Try restoring your Catholic faith. Your poisonous babbling has got you nowhere and it never will. You say I’m rude, I’m only speaking to you in your vernacular.
Angelo—I don’t know if your serious health problems are causing your mind to fail—or whether you have darker motives. Charity would urge one towards the first supposition—but either way, the fact is you haven’t the slightest notion what you’ve been talking about all up and down this thread, and what’s worse—you rudely spurn even charitable attempts to correct you, when just a cursory investigation of the facts would show you that everything I’ve said is accurate. I don’t know where you come up with this “Traditional” Catholicism of yours, but it must have been a Crackerjack box—you won’t find it in the Baltimore Catechism or any other reputable source. I apologize if I have falsely imputed dishonest intent. But your “traditional” beliefs are still a load of horse meat.
The Church has approved of Sister Emmerich’s virtues. It does NOT approve of Brentano’s alleged reportage of Blessed Emmerich’s sayings—nor does the Church even believe that Brentano has faithfully recorded her words. There is evidence that his books are a hoax. As for who is the “victim” here—I am not the victim—the TRUTH is the victim. Have you no respect at all for the truth, sir? You pose as a “traditional,” rock-ribbed Catholic while spouting one line of pure baloney after another. Hardly ANYTHING you’ve said in this dialogue is true—and I’m sick, tired and fed up with your hypocrisy sir! My patience is at an end.
“The Church does not warn us that private revelation must never be regarded as infallible.” YES IT DOES!!! “The Church teaches that private revelation a Catholic need not accept.” Same difference! “Also that what the Church approves of no one has the right to disapprove of.” The Church declares some private revelation WORTHY of belief. It does not command belief. So yes, you can disapprove of it. “Sister Emmerich is now Blessed Emmerich.” Correct. “The private revelations have certainly been approved by the Church.” NO THEY HAVEN’T! Brentano is believed to have perpetrated a literary hoax. “You have taken us on one hec of a wild roller coaster ride and now wish to make yourself the victim.” I’m sick of the lies you’ve been telling.
Larry, Re-read all the comments especially your own. “Where is all this heading? You ask. Mine have been mostly defense of my comments according to Church teaching. “Where is all this heading? Well your the one who has been taking us on a roller coaster ride, and you ask, “Where is all this heading? The Church does not warn us that private revelation must never be regarded as infallible. The Church teaches that private revelation a Catholic need not accept. Also that what the Church approves of no one has the right to disapprove of. As for caution, that is a warning from the Church concerning private revelations still being investigated and not yet been given full approval by Ecclesiastical Authority. Sister Emmerich is now Blessed Emmerich. The private revelations have certainly been approved by the Church. You have no obligation to believe them, likewise because the Church has approve them you neither have the right to put your stamp of disapproval. As for obedience to the Holy Father, I give 100% obedience on all matters of faith and morals. I may not like a Pope’s personal taste and style, but then that is not a matter of faith and morals. You have taken us on one hec of a wild roller coaster ride and now wish to make yourself the victim. Sorry I don’t buy it.
Where is this all heading? First of all, it is the Church Herself, not just me, that warns us that private revelation must never be regarded as infallible—must be taken with caution. I don’t know about the other mystics you cite, but Sister Emmerich’s alleged writings (actually authored by Clemens Brentano) most certainly are NOT approved—and in fact are highly suspect. What have I ever said against John of the Cross or Teresa of Avila? All you’ve been doing is making completely unwarranted assumptions about me and unsubstantiated statements about what the popes supposedly think or don’t think. All this just because I said people should be obedient to the pope? Who’s being proud here, you or me?
Larry, Perhaps you need a tad of humility yourself as you recommend to others. The Church does not have official teaching on everything. But there are those who want the Church to bend over backward before they believe or allow others to believe. His Holiness Pope Emeritus Benedict XVl relied heavily as he himself said on a certain Mystic who people always referred to as Saint. She was never officially canonized. Benedict XVl officially declared her a Saint of the Church. Of course you would disapprove. Why deny to others what the Church does not deny us? The Church has a history of Mystics whom heaven revealed the gaps in Biblical history. Such as St. Gertrude, Ven. Mary of Agreda, Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, St. Catherine of Sienna, Bl. Anna Maria Taigi, St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila and so and so on. Their writings of what happened in biblical times has the official approval of the Church. The mystical revelations of the Holy Grail is fascinating. I don’t understand you disapproving of what the Church herself has not disapproved and even approved. Why do you do this? Please answer!
On the other hand, the term “Holy Grail” is commonly understood to refer to medieval mythology involving King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. And Jack—I think you, sir, need some of that humility which you urge upon others. The Church has pointedly declined to approve the alleged apparitions at Medjugorje and Garabandal, and does not approve of pilgrimages to either place. MDM goes completely anonymous, uninvestigated and unapproved. Even SSPX does not contend that Pope Emeritus Benedict could not resign and therefor remains pope, Francis being in effect an antipope. Physician, heal thyself of thine own pride!
Angelo, you’re confusing “tradition” with a lower-case “T” with upper-case “T” “Sacred Tradition,” something entirely different. The latter forms the basis for infallible dogma. But you’re mixing pious folklore into your “tradition,” and CCC#83 explains the difference. There are, in fact, several churches which claim to have the actual Holy Chalice used by Christ—most notably Spain’s Valencia Cathedral. That vessel has been used by popes, including Benedict XVI—and many experts believe it could, indeed, be the chalice of the Last Supper—but the Church has no teaching on it.
Casting Crowns, What is it that you don’t understand about St. John’s Gospel when he states, “Not everything that Jesus said and done is written here. If it were all written, this world would not be able to hold all the volumes”. Why do you think that we know nothing else but what is written in sacred scripture. Perhaps you do not understand that the Church relies on both Scripture and Tradition. You say that people like myself must be exposed, I say the same about people who think like you. You and your type of Catholics need to be exposed as the “Sola Scriptura” type. It is people like yourself who reject scripture that says, “not all is written here” in your own words you reject and violate this passage. The type of thinking that if its not in scripture it never happened, is an insult to God. The Church has long held sacred tradition. One example is from the Via Crucis, Veronica wipes the face of Jesus. That is not in scripture but the Church has always believed it to have actually happened. She is known as St. Veronica yet that is not her real name. Veronica comes from the Latin, True Veil. In Italy there is enshrined the veil of St. Veronica and the face imprinted with human blood on it is the identical face on the Shroud of Turin. Sorry but you have been and remain in error.
Jack, Our lady herself answers your question about why God chooses those easily humbled. In her Magnificat Our Lady says, “The proud he has sent empty away, while the poor he gives every good thing to eat.”. God keeps all his promises, especially from the Old and New testaments. He has always promised to take the weak and make them strong. He always chooses the weak to do his most grand work among his people. And the proud don’t like this. Because they do not like what is simple and humble. While the poor like what is simple and humble for themselves, but all grandeur for God.
Larry and savvy, You both jump from one point to another claiming some sort of infallibility. Of course you both know everything. Does not make much for discussion. You condemn any Pious belief that you don’t have an answer for. Can’t you accept things you cannot explain. Or must you be able to accept things only if you personaly understand it. Do you know what the Holy Grail is? It is by Tradition the Chalice used by Christ at the Last Supper the first Mass. It is very ornate and made of precious materials. I’m not sure but I think the Holy Grail is kept in the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela in Spain. It was used for the Holy Mass by Bl. John Paul ll. Of course the liberals have been trying for years to knock it down as myth, a medieval invention. What would you say of the Veil of Veronica, the Shroud of Turin, the Scala Santa, Jesus footprints melted in marble when he met St. Peter on the Apian way and kept n the Basilica of St. Sebastian in Rome ect… ect…ect…
Why does God chooses persons who are easily humiliated. Like St.John the baptist.Like St.Diego of Guadalupe. Like St.Bernadette of Lourdes. Like the 3 visionaries of Fatima. Like the visionaries of Garabandal. Like the visionaries of Medjugorji. Like MDM. Are we too proud because we are catholics. We are very proud because because Jesus promised to us He will be with us until the end of time. Yes that is true. He can still be with His church but not in seat of Vatican. For pope Benidect is still His Pope. We need to humble ourselves to accept back Jesus in His Second Coming.
Does anyone knows the third secret of Famita? Pope John Paul and Pope Benidect 16 cannot reveal the exact wordings of that secret.Maybe this could hurt the church itself.
That’s the problem with these people who toss hypotheticals out there as “truth.” Catholic tribalism is when someone like Angelo thinks “Well, it could have happened” —and then invented theology is built up around the hypothetical. They typically will use the only line in the gospel they can which says in John 21:25 (“Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written”).
.
People of Angelo’s bent keep searching for things which aren’t there and try to invent extra-curricula adjuncts to the gospel. He doesn’t trust the gospel to stand as it is written. He and many like him are misguided thinking they are defending the faith when, in fact, they really are insecure in the faith. They need more and the extra-biblical rather than trusting the Lord (and His word). Apostles Mathew and John walked with Jesus and were eye witnesses to what they saw and heard. If there were things more important for us to know surely they would have written them. The same applies for 1 & 2nd Peter.
.
We need to expose these people seeking to invent new theology while adding on to the gospel which has not already been revealed. Doing this violates what we are warned against by John in the very last sentence of Revelation. We are neither to add nor subtract to the word of God.
The problem with the “elaborately decorated table” version of the Last Supper is essentially what Colleen pointed out above—it portrays the Passover supper and the first mass as two separate actions. This I find incompatible with the proposition that our Mass is the result of Christ having invested the Passover supper with a new and higher meaning that first Holy Thursday. If on the other hand Jesus celebrated the Mass AFTER the supper, and at a separate table, then He could just as well have celebrated it BEFORE the supper—in fact, even WEEKS or MONTHS before. All linkage between the two is removed—and their happening on the same night is mere coincidence. I find this idea intellectually intolerable.
Interesting. These “messages” do not mention Mary at all—and Jesus is mentioned only once in passing, towards the end. They do not call souls to repentance and penance. They do not even mention sin or the present condition of the world. No mention of prayer or the Rosary. I’m not aware of any other occasion in the Christian era where God the Father elbows Jesus and Mary off the stage, speaks directly to humanity in his own voice and promises a “New Paradise on Earth,” of all things! Oh and by the way, “MDM”‘s true identity is unknown—so these “messages” have not been, and cannot be vetted by any bishop. Believe at your own risk.
Part 4
Children, I will bless you and protect you. You are Mine – all of you. While I pine for you and weep for those of you who hate Me, I will use My Almighty Power to unlock your hardened hearts so that I can bequeath to you the inheritance, which I have lovingly Created. My Intervention, by revealing to you events to come, will help you to understand how much I love you. When these events unfold before your eyes, I will be waiting for you to come to Me with love and trust in your souls.
Your beloved Father
God the Most High
Part 3
To those who have waited the Gift of Conversion – those poor empty souls of Mine – I tell you now. I, Your Loving Father, promise you that I will embrace you and open your hearts when you say this prayer.
God the Father: Prayer for the Key to the New Paradise
“Dear Father, it is I, Your lost child, who, so confused and blind, that
without Your Help, Your Love, I am nothing.Save me through the Love of Your Son, Jesus Christ, and give me the Key to Your New Paradise on Earth. Amen.”
Part 2
When the Voice of God reaches the hearts of man, it multiplies within the souls of many. It is My Goodness, as the Loving Father of the whole of humanity, which allows for these great blessings. As foretold, great miracles will be witnessed by those who have been given the Gift of the Holy Spirit through this Mission. I bless all of those who scatter and spread My Messages, for their efforts will yield My Word like a mist, which will cover the Earth.
A very beautiful message today from God The Father on MDM’s website.
Part 1
My beloved daughter, as the Flames of the Holy Spirit engulfs those humble souls who read these Messages, so too will be the spread of global conversion. The Holy Word of God is like a powerful gust of wind, which brings with it, and to all those souls in its wake, the fruits of plenitude.
From those first seeds planted, a multitude of fruits have grown, which cover every nation, including those under communist regime.
My daughter, as My Holy Word grips the minds and souls of every creed, it will cut like a sword through those nations who turn their backs on Me, your beloved Father. So, when the hatred increases against you, know that My Holy Word, to help save souls, is succeeding,
You, My messenger, are but an instrument. This Mission is not about you. It is not about the enlightenment of your soul, for this is not My objective, although this is pleasing to Me. You, My daughter, as the final messenger, must only convey to the world the Messages you are being given, for the good of mankind. Your opinions, and your advice to others, is of no importance and you do not have the authority to share any such human views with others.
An “elaborately decorated table,” the “Holy Grail”...? What’s any of that got to do with the SSPX’s situation?
Larry, Who has gone off into the dark woods? I simply stated a long held tradition of the Church and everyone is now bleeding to death from a pinprick. Get with the Faith!
It seems that this argument has veered far off the beaten path of rationality deep into the dark woods of fantasy. The Catholic faith I’ve been taught all my life is eminently and powerfully logical, reasonable and rational. Yet in the name of that faith, Angelo wants to take us all into the Twilight Zone. He offers us one tall tale after another, each of which is easily demolished by simple faith-based logic. But logic, faith-based or otherwise matters nothing to him. He has an unending supply of tall tales which he mistakenly calls the traditional Catholic faith. As for me, I don’t think I have anything more to contribute.
Sorry, Traditio. That’s like saying because Jesus said nothing about gay marriage—then it’s OK. You enjoy creating mythologies. Colleen called you out on that elaborately decorated “other room” at the Last Supper. You think because something is not stated in the gospel then everything and anything is possible.
How extremely strange. Because someone has not heard of something it never happened. I suppose Our Lady was not assumed into Heaven nor Crowned queen of Heaven and Earth. I suppose the Holy Grail is a fake, since its not in scripture. I suppose St. Joseph still walks the earth as scripture speaks nothing of his death. All this came after Vatican ll when the liberals brought into question everything concerning the Catholic Faith. I suppose the Church has no right to hold to Tradition. What empty opposition. I suppose St. John the Evangelist like myself is lying that not everything Jesus said and done has been written down. I praise Almighty God for our Holy Catholic faith. If you didn’t see it then I suppose it never happened. I see that the silly season of the Church is still with us. If you went to Rome you would deny everything that is there. How the heresy of modernism has poisoned the minds of the ignorant. Chalk up another point for the SSPX.
@Colleen: Traditio (aka “Angelo” from other blogs) is an example of throwing everything up against the wall and see what sticks. He epitomizes Catholic tribalism whereby something gets started in one parish and might be adopted by the local diocese. These beliefs are never “official” church teaching but people in the pew come to accept this nonsense as fact. And when you challenge such beliefs as not gospel-based and ask for the source, they turn and attack you for “hating the church, hating Mary, and the old hackneyed “are you REALLY Catholic?”
.
For Traditio, his priority is church structure and keeping rules. Christianity is about forgiveness of sin and redemption—the gospel of Jesus Christ. Traditio has moved the gospel to the back of the bus and invented not only his own theology but his own brand of Catholicism.
@Traditio: [“but is the Pious belief by those who still hold to the Holy Catholic Faith.”] Angelo, “those”—meaning those who see things you and *those* who think and believe as you do regarding Vatican II.
.
I appreciate your passion, however, what makes your faith worth more and greater than the next person? You are 53. How are you more Catholic than someone who is 33 and equally committed to the faith? I hope your next step is not to begin judging your brother’s salvation. Some of your rant makes you sound the man in the Temple thanking God he is not like “the rest of men”—that is, other Catholics.
.
You cannot control what others do even if you believe church leaders have acted sinfully. All men are flawed and sinners. The scandals of the last dozen years have caused many people to lose faith in the church (organization) but we do not lose our faith in Christ.
Traditio, frankly I’m rather amused at your account of the Last Supper. It does not accord with the Gospels, which describe the first Eucharist during the Passover meal, not after. And considering the circumstances and context of the Last Supper, a set-aside, elaborately decorated table doesn’t make much sense. I would certainly be interested in knowing where your account originates - was it propogated by a doctor of the Church? Who transmitted this account?
“...The Last Supper account is not my own but is the Pious belief by those who still hold to the Holy Catholic Faith.” Well, I still “hold to the Holy Catholic Faith”—I’m 58 years old—I began my formal religious education in 1961—and I’ve never heard that particular account of the Last Supper before—until this very thread. I find it odd that none of the Evangelists mention this “elaborately decorated table” which is separate from the actual supper table. That alone doesn’t disprove your story—it’s just a strange omission. What concerns me more, Angelo, is that you’re living in a fantasy world where everything is as you’d like it, and everyone is as you’d want them to be. Reality is not so neat.
Davez, It is out of love for Jesus Christ and his Church that I remain in union with the Holy Father’s wishes. Perhaps what you cannot bear is the power that comes from Christ for us to stand firm and not walk away from Our Lord. By your comment when you say “Grace, Love, Hope, Mercy” I believe that you do not understand the meaning of those holy words. My hate and anger is for the betrayal of Christ Our Lord through his Holy Roman Catholic Church and not for the individuals who do this. I pray for the sinner, while condemning error. Can you understand that?
I must turn my notification off for this discussion. There is so much ugliness going on here. Anyone visiting this page who is not Christian or is a Protestant, and in their right mind, would run far away from the Catholic Church as possible. But I know those above with hate and anger don’t represent Christ’s Church. Review your words from the lens of Christ Jesus. When you smell hate, lust and power, not love…turn and walk away and pray as you go. You who I’m speaking to know in your heart.
Remember Grace, Love, Hope, Mercy. Look for those character traits in the words and undercurrents above.
Larry, The Last Supper account is not my own but is the Pious belief by those who still hold to the Holy Catholic Faith. In the past 45 years much of the practice of the Faith has been discarded. We have lost so much. I think I said this before, when I started cathecism in 1965 at age 6, the Second Vatican Council was in its final Session. I am an eyewitness to all the changes which in my opinion for the absolute worse. I know of not one change that was for the best. I’m not talking Vatican Council ll, but rather those who took it upon themselves to create their own V2 and shoved it down our throats against our will.
I’m aware of what piety is. I was under the impression from the wording of your post that you were attributing your Last Supper account to some individual known as “the Pious.”
Larry, Piety is one of the gifts of the Holy Ghost. It is love for the Church and all the things of God. Piety is necessary for being truly devoted to God Creator of all that exists. It is the gift of Piety that enables us to pray well and to appreciate all the truths of God Almighty. After Vatican ll the modernists dragged the very word “Piety” through the mud thus sinning against the Holy Ghost.
Who is “the Pious,” Angelo?
Casting Crowns, Why do you think the Pope’s Bl. John Paul ll and Pope Benedict XVl called for the reform of the reforms. Remember it was you who have used that word “Hijacked”. Ven. Paul Vl did his best to stop the madness, but the liberals were victorious over him, thus his own words, “I detect the smoke of satan has entered the very house of God”. Larry the traditions I speak of are called by liberals “mere legends.” But by the Pious it gives us a better appreciation of our faith. Please recall the words of St. John the Evangelist, ” Not all that Jesus said and did is written here. What has been written is only so that you may believe in Jesus. If all that Jesus said and did were written, this world would not be able to hold all the volumes.”
By that I mean that things had better be exactly as you say, or your soul could be in serious danger. Spiritually I’m playing it safe by avoiding any interaction with “Catholic” groups in rebellion against the pope.
Angelo, I don’t know where you’re getting your information on the Last Supper, but your description of it is pure fantasy—beautiful and pious, but fantasy nonetheless. You have no moral right to call it the truth. You say that my description of SSPX is only “the old liberal way of saying things.” Very well. You sincerely believe you are doing the right thing. But so did Saul of Tarsus when he was slaughtering Christians. The fact is, he was doing the wrong thing and God had to stop him and turn him around. You, like all of us, are accountable to Jesus Christ—not to me or anyone else. Since SSPX is in rebellion against the Church, you are the one who MUST be right, not me. Think long and hard about that.
@Traditio: I am aware of the undercurrent yet no diocesan Bishops nor parish priests ever broach this topic. Why not? Paul VI had ample time to thwart all this. Your implication is that the Catholic church has been hijacked.
@Traditio: [“Tradition tells us that after Christ and the Apostles finished the Passover meal, they passed over to an elaborately decorated table, which was similar to our ancient Altars. This is where Christ said the first Mass. In a different room, the Woman especially Our Lady were in prayer. Afterwards Christ himself took Holy Communion to the woman, first to his Holy Mother who was overjoyed to once again hold him in her womb.
.
So that I may read up on this tradition being factual from having occurred, please cite the source material and where I can find it.
Casting Crowns, You ask “who” are they and “we”. You must study the Church before and during the Council. Then study the Church after the Council. We the faithful were all led astray through the “Spirit of Vatican ll” Catholics. They completely overturned the Church as Bl. John Paul ll condemned said, “Making changes for the mere sake of change” Ven. Paul Vl referred to this era as the “Great upheaval in the Church”. Ven Paul Vl coined the famous term, “I detect the smoke of satan has entered into the very house of God”. He also said, “My Crown of Thorns has been the way priests are acting today”. Does that not reveal a great deal of what I am talking about?
Colleen, Many things we know about Christ’s actions come down to us from Tradition. Tradition tells us that after Christ and the Apostles finished the Passover meal, they passed over to an elaborately decorated table, which was similar to our ancient Altars. This is where Christ said the first Mass. In a different room, the Woman especially Our Lady were in prayer. Afterwards Christ himself took Holy Communion to the woman, first to his Holy Mother who was overjoyed to once again hold him in her womb.
savvy, You say you have had discussions with SSPX members and that they twist things around. Look closely, Traditionalists, SSPX or not, have studied the history of the Church. Perhaps you have not. So it is questionable of whether the Traditionalists you have spoken to are the ones twisting things around. I am not a member of the SSPX, but that does not mean that I have to hate them, marginalize them and treat them like the leprosy.
Jimmy, thanks for the excellent post. But I have to say that after reading all of the comments, I find it hilarious to see so many defending “tradition” without understanding the original traditions that ours grew out of! I nearly fell out of my chair laughing at the statements that no women were present at the Last Supper - who do they think prepared and served the meal? Why do they think Mary, Mary Magdelene, and the other women were IN Jerusalem and present with him the next day? And I know at least modern Passover rituals have very specific roles for women, so it’s very possible the women had specific roles in that last Passover meal. Just because they didn’t have “speaking roles” in the Gospels doesn’t mean they weren’t there.
Larry, you gave an answer to my question. But I find it unacceptable because it is only the old liberal way of saying things. Casting Crowns, “rebellion against Peters Chair”, sounds like old liberalism. Calumniate a adherent of the Church and lets rid ourselves of him. Hey, isn’t that what was done to Christ Our Lord.
@Traditio: Since you seem to be in rebellion against Peter’s chair, there clearly is a bit of Protestant in you.
“Antiquior” is the comparative-degree version of the adjective “antiquus (a-um),” which means old, ancient, “coming before”, etc. So “the Ancient Usage” would probably be “Usus Antiquus,” while an exact translation of “Usus Antiquior” would probably be “The Older Usage,” or “The Older of the Two Usages,” if you’re comparing it to the Novus Ordo.
Casting Crowns, “He needs to be challenged” You say of me. The only answer I can give you on that is that this is a Catholic discussion and not a Protestant one. Speak the language of Catholicism and make your mark.
@Traditio: [“Ven. Pius Xll speaking on anti-Semitism had this to say, “No one can be a Catholic and an anti-semite at the same time. As we are all Semites by adoption.”]
.
I am not Jewish nor am I anti-semitic. What Pius XII said is not doctrine, but personal opinion. He was not speaking “ex cathedra” (from the chair).
.
@savvy: This is another example and goes to the core of how Angelo processes all of his information.
You do not go wrong in desiring their reconciliation, Angelo. But you DO go wrong if you will not face the fact that they have REFUSED to reconcile, and that the sticking point is clearly the Society’s rejection of Vatican II as being Magisterial and therefore binding and irreformable. You also go wrong if you refuse to understand that the impasse is all but permanent. I cannot imagine SSPX surrendering, because that is what it would take. The pope cannot give up on that point. You go wrong if you believe that reunion was sabotaged by a few bad actors in the Holy See and SSPX, and not by SSPX as a whole. You go wrong if you refuse to see that they are sinning gravely and we must distance ourselves from that sin.
Larry, Yes their were some changes but the structure of the Mass remains the same, even the Novus Ordo retains the main structure of the Mass. Many complain that it retains the structure of the Mass in a diluted way. Bl. John Paul ll speaking on the “Usus’ (Usage) “Antiquior” (Ancient) said, “We cannot lose the rich ancient prayers of the Mass of St. Pius V.”
@savvy: Of course you know me better than that. However, Traditio (Angelo) has a habit of making blanket statements in the past and using tribalism for truth. He needs to be challenged when doing so.
Casting Crowns, Ven. Pius Xll speaking on anti-Semitism had this to say, “No one can be a Catholic and an anti-semite at the same time. As we are all Semites by adoption.”
“Some variations”! That’s the understatement of the year! Another canard is that “Quo Primum” forbids any and all alterations of the mass until the end of time. No, it forbids anyone BUT THE POPE from altering the mass until the end of time. In fact, many changes were made between 1570 and 1962. Some of the more extreme nostalgists even reject the mass of 1962 in favor of the 1954 Latin liturgy—some reject changes made by Pius XII in 1951, such as the giving of Communion to laymen on Good Friday. “Usus Antiquior” can, and probably should, be translated: “The Older Usage.”
Larry, You say you have already answered my question on where do I go wrong in being in union with Rome on the desire for the reconciliation of the SSPX. Thus far I have found your answers unacceptable, without merit.
@Traditio: There’s your problem right there. Because “A priest once said” is his own personal slant. Catholics or Christians are not Jews by adoption. Gentiles are adopted sons and daughters of the living God.
.
Furthermore, delighting in Muslims or Jews who enjoy attending the Tridentine Mass is neither here nor there if they fail to accept who Christ Jesus is. The spiritual progression of a Jew is to become a Christian as did Paul and the apostles.
Again I ask, where do I go wrong in being in union with the Pope’s in desiring the reconciliation of the SSPX? Please answer me this question. I challenge you!
Larry, From the Council of Trent, St. Pius V codified the Mass because there were some variations. We call it the Tridentine Mass but that is a misnomer. Pope benedict XVl refers to it as the “Usus Antiquior” or The Ancient use. When codifying the Mass St. Pius V being a Dominican used the Dominican Form of the Ancient Mass as the Mass to be said until the end of the world. Read “Quo Primum”, the Church has never abrogated this Papal Bulla, so it still remains as solid as rock. We must not undo what the Church has not undone. This would be very dangerous to our souls.
“@savvy: Early on there were never enough Bishops and Priests to preside over
“every” local Christian town or outpost. “
There were five main centres of early Christianity. The Bishops who ordained priests, had to be from these five places.
Casting Crowns. This is not a Catholic-Evangelical debate. We are trying to get Traditio to see the errors of the SSPX. So, unless you are trying to create mischief here, I do not see what the point of your arguments is. It’s nothing we have not heard before.
@Traditio: [“Because of Modernism we have been led to believe that the Apostles and the early Church was something bland.”] Oh really? Please identify “who” is ‘we’ and the source of those leading you to believe such nonsense.
.
On the contrary, both ACTS and the letters of Paul reflect a flourishing, Holy Ghost-inspired and burgeoning church leading people to Christ.
A priest once said in his sermon that the Roman Catholic Church is the fulfillment of the ancient prophecies which makes us Jews by adoption. All of our traditions come from the Jews. Our Churches have always been constructed in the style of the Temple of Jerusalem. All of our Catholic Traditional practices come from the Jewish Religion of Christ’s time. Examples, Holy Water, Incense, elaborate vestments in the worship of God, the Eastern Church is more in line to the ancient Jewish vestments as commanded by God. All our Liturgical celebrations are in line with Jewish custom. I read that many Jews love to attend the Tridentine Mass, because they say it is the closest they can get to their ancient Jewish worship of God. I have a cousin who is Muslim, he always attended Mass saying it was the closest he could get to Muslim worship of God. Today many Muslims make pilgrimages to Fatima Portugal. Isn’t that something?
Larry is right, the church has over 23 rites.
Angelo—you have to stop believing these people. Your information at 2:34 p.m. EDT is completely wrong. The Tridentine Mass constitutes the 1962 version of a mass created only in 1570. Before that, there were many rites in Latin, Greek and finally Aramaic, going all the way back to the Last Supper. Every reason you’ve given to admire the SSPX people is not only false, but demonstrably so—false to the point of being an insult to the intelligence. I can’t understand why someone like you would believe it.
Traditio,
Nobody here is saying the Mass was in error. We are saying that SSPX is in error.
“I would like to ask where I go wrong in being in union with Rome on the desire for the reconciliation of the Society of St. Pius X.” I have told you, Angelo, but you will not listen to me. So perhaps you should listen to yourself. Your own words refer to the “desire for the reconciliation…,” which means that the reconciliation has not happened. With that you contradict your own claim that SSPX remains an “integral part” of the Church. How is that possible if their reconciliation is still desired? To Casting Crowns: “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven…(etc)” That’s where Jesus says it.
Because of Modernism we have been led to believe that the Apostles and the early Church was something Bland. It is important to note that the Apostles did not give up essential traditions of the Old Testament, not even Christ did that, he said, “I have not come to destroy the laws and the prophets” Very important statement from God made Man himself. St. Paul exhorts us, “Keep all the traditions that we have given you”. For 16 Centuries Christ guiding his Church the Mass was in its Ancient form which today we refer to as the Tridentine Mass or the “Usus Antiquior”. It is unacceptable to think that the Mass was said in error for 1,600 years.
@savvy: Early on there were never enough Bishops and Priests to preside over “every” local Christian town or outpost. Also, I made no comment concerning the Eucharist (Holy Communion). Yes, it’s crucial to true and authentic worship. Why did you mention it?
savvy, I have debated anti-Catholics, Modernists and ultra-traditionalist, so I know where your coming from. From some of the comments here I would like to ask where I go wrong in being in union with Rome on the desire for the reconciliation of the Society of St. Pius X. There is something Pope Benedict XVl said many times concerning the Ancient Mass, “How could one hold something sacred one day and the hold it in contempt the next. Something is very spiritually wrong with those who do this.”
Casting Crowns,
The Mass does not exist for itself, but to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross, and to heal us with Christ’s body and blood, until he comes again. The Eucharist is essential to salvation as described in John 6.
Casting Crowns,
Your views about the Apostolic age are incorrect. Bishops/Priests, and Deacons were in place by a 100 A.D. Did you know there were more than 4 Gospels, and the church had to decide which ones were inspired. If it was not for the church, we would all be Arians or gnostics.
The church pre-dates the NT. Not the other way around.
@Larry: [“HE will not reward either disobedience to the pope or the aiding and abetting of those who ARE in disobedience.”] —-
Please cite “where” in the gospel Jesus makes such a statement?
.
For the sake of real and true authenticity, perhaps the church should return back to the apostolic age and worship only in private homes and in small groups. These groups had no ordained priests but mostly Presiders or Deacons. (They also had far fewer rules and regulations to hang around the necks of people as did the Pharisees).
.
How is this obsessive arguing over church order and structure impacting your own salvation? It doesn’t. At the judgment, do you really expect the Lord will ask for your position on the Tridentine Mass versus the Novus Ordo?
“...the fact is that the SSPX Bishops and the millions of the Society’s adherents remain an integral part of the Church.” That is completely false, Angelo, and the Holy See is on record that SSPX priests and bishops exercise no valid ministry within the Catholic Church—they are entirely without faculties. The former bishop of Lincoln, Nebraska banned his people from associating with their chapel, and I am not aware that the new bishop has changed anything. SSPX’s prayers for the pope only reveal the depth of their hypocrisy. You say that you yourself remain in union with the popes, but if you continue listening to SSPX’s lies, one day that may no longer be true of you.
I have tried to give my opinions but I have found that if one writes a comment that is long it is not accepted. So for now on I will keep my comments at a minimum. I’m enjoying this!
My views on the SSPX, have also been shaped by being in conversation with them. Not by listening to someone else. I have found them to be rude, hateful, and nasty. A lot like foul mouth liberals. The excuses are just different.
Traditio,
I have been in debate with the SSPX. They will turn things around that insist that only their interpretation is the right one, and everybody else has it wrong. We interpret church teachings with the lens of the church, not with our individual interpretations, because there are times when our interpretations can conflict each other.
Larry, In the Novus Ordo Church many have said the SSPX prays more for the Pope than anyone else. At the Election of Pope Francis l, the SSPX officials called on all Catholics to pray a great deal for “Our New Holy Father”. I remain in union with the pope’s past and present. Smear the Society all one wants but the fact is that the SSPX Bishops and the millions of the Society’s adherents remain an integral part of the Church. Those who don’t want this have made a major split with the will of God.
svvy, Then maybe you should listen to the SSPX and use Church documents to prove them wrong. I challenge you.
As to what emotions and attitudes a certain number of men may or may not have towards SSPX, we can only speculate. You believe that the individuals you named have or had “great respect and admiration” for SSPX. Maybe you’re right. Maybe you’re wrong. In either case, your perception is irrelevant. The fact is that SSPX stands in contempt of papal authority, and that is all anyone needs to know. We are not ultimately answerable to any of the men you cited. We answer to Jesus Christ, and HE demands obedience to His Vicar. HE will not reward either disobedience to the pope or the aiding and abetting of those who ARE in disobedience.
The church reached out to them, in the hopes that they would return. Not, because they hold their disobedience in high esteem.
Traditio,
We are not talking about a few crazy people. If you go to their website, their superiors clearly spell out their rejection of things, a Catholic is supposed to accept.
If union with the Holy Father is not important to you, then why are you still Catholic. You are no different from a modernist in the church.
savvy, Not all Traditionalists are schismatic. I am a Traditionalist who in traditionalist Chapels is known as a Novus Ordo Traditionalist. I have given my obedience to the Holy Father since the age of 17, am now almost 54. If I now defend the SSPX it is because of the great respect and admiration Bl. John Paul ll and Pope Benedict XVl had for them. Also the great respect that Cardinals Bishops and priests and many of the laity have for them. Cardinal Burke of the Apostolic Signatura said it all concerning the SSPX. He said they have everything the Holy Mass with an understanding of it ect… Sure SSPX has some trouble makers and the Superiors of the Society rigidly frown on that. Will be back.
Traditio,
I am quite traditional in my views. I subscribe to the teachings of the church. I do not have to ally myself with the SSPX or any other schismatic group to prove it.
There is a difference between tradition and traditionalists, who thinks the only thing counts is their tradition.
@Traditio: [“That’s when we Trads broke loose and will never be chained up by modernists again. NEVER!
.
Have you ever considered being a thermostat in the room rather than being a thermometer? No doubt Satan is delighted with your obsession over legalism.
.
Rather than issuing warnings to everyone else, perhaps you should be warned about breaking the First Commandment. You have wrongly made “Tradition” into a false god of your worship. Tradition has replaced Christ on the throne.
Promote the old mass as much as you like. Speak out boldly against Modernism! But do NOT—I beg of you—continue to aid and abet SSPX! The time has come to make a clean break with those who have chosen the wrong path, or risk sharing their fate when we come to judgement. We know not when death will come calling. Siding with SSPX is grave matter indeed.
I’ve always believed you are a sincere follower of Jesus and His Church—that pleasing God is uppermost in your mind. But what concerns me is that good intentions can only excuse faulty judgment up to a point—you have to DO the right thing and avoid the wrong—and it is wrong, terribly wrong, to admire and encourage so-called Catholic priests and bishops in carrying on rebellion against the pope, no matter how justified you feel.
Larry, Thanks to Bl. John Paul ll and Pope Benedict XVl the real Vatican ll is beginning to shine forth. The New Springtime hoped for by Bl. John XXlll is now beginning to shine forth. And we owe it all to Traditionalist Catholics, SSPX or not. The Church is now making a great comeback, much credit goes to the young who were able to discern in their young minds what is truth and what is false. As soon as the young find out about the Old Latin Mass, they are the ones who fill the pews of the Chapels. They are now the majority in Traditionalists circles. Deo Gratias!
From now on, SSPX has nothing more to say to loyal Catholics who want to do the will of God. The will of God is that we remain obedient to the pope. This, the Society will NOT do. It is clear now that you either march with SSPX or you march with Jesus Christ, because where Peter is there also is His Church. You can’t continue to flirt with these people, Angelo, if what you want is to please Our Lord, because this will NOT please Him.
Our pope asked SSPX very nicely to please come back on board. He gave them generous concessions. They replied, “no, thank you,” because he would not do the one thing they demanded—to, in effect, abrogate Vatican II. Make no mistake—this is what SSPX really wants. The Church can do nothing more to bring them back.
savvy, Before declaring what Traditionalist believe or not believe, first look at traditionalism through the eyes of traditionalists. Never pretend to know what you do not know. Be careful of what you say, because you may be playing into the evil ones game. Learn what the Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ first, then you can make sober judgments.
My original statement is correct, Angelo—Benedict XVI simply denounced the tendentious caricaturing of the Council, and stated that the true, unfiltered Council is actually starting to shine forth and dissipate the lies. Vatican II does not need to be “re-interpreted.” There is nothing wrong with Vatican II. It needs only to have the truth told about it. That’s all. As for the SSPX—it’s like this, Angelo: Jesus appointed Peter (and his successors) to lead the Church—to serve as the rock of unity. We are therefore obligated to be loyal to the pope’s lawful orders, or we are kidding ourselves if we think we are loyal to Christ.
Larry, You are wrong. Pope Benedict XVl did in fact many times call for the re-interpretation of Vatican Council ll in light of tradition. Because you have not heard of it does not mean he didn’t say it many, many times. He said it allright and called on the SSPX, saying that their contribution with their theologians would be of great benefit to the Church. Liberals did not really misinterpret Vatican ll, they ignored the Council altogether and invented their own Vatican ll and forced us to adhere to their ideas. Those days ended in October of 1984. That’s when Bl. John Paul ll gave an indult for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that was said for 16 Centuries. That’s when we Trads broke loose and will never be chained up by modernists again. NEVER! Pope Francis as a Jesuit suffered a great deal under his Superiors because he defended the purity of the Catholic Faith and totally rejected liberation theology. Bet now they are redfaced!
Traditio: Pope Benedict never called on the Church to re-interpret Vatican II. He called upon elements of the Church to stop MIS-interpreting Vatican II, and clarified that the only proper way to “interpret” the Council is, always was, and always will be in the “Light of Tradition.” Both liberals and SSPX contend that the Council CANNOT be interpreted in the “Light of Tradition.” You must open your eyes and see what is really happening, or you are in serious danger of ultimately being led away from any loyalty to Rome whatsoever by SSPX’s lies, and that is exactly what these phony excuses are: lies.
Pope Benedict granted SSPX’s demands that: authorization to celebrate the 1962 mass be widened and that: the excommunications of four bishops ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre be lifted. He got nothing in return. The truth is that SSPX rejects Vatican II, while the Holy See says Catholics may NOT reject Vatican II—and the two positions are irreconcilable. The SSPX is also objecting to efforts to canonize John Paul II. I believe JPII WILL be canonized, and I wouldn’t be surprised if at that point, the SSPX were to demand that the canonization be reversed as part of a deal to reconcile.
@Phillip Campbell: Good comment. Somehow the grace of God and forgiveness of sin is totally irrelevant or oblivious to these people.
The extreme tradtionalist rejects the pope’s power to loose laws, while the liberal rejects the pope’s power to bind laws. Both sides being subject concupiscience after the fall, have faults to overcome.
@Traditio: Seems your time and energy would be much better served if you were more enthusiastic about the gospel of Jesus Christ and the King and His Cross rather than your intense focus on church legalism.
.
Consider that such a high interest in church legalism is Satan’s way of distracting you from the real importance—that of Christ. One needn’t be Protestant or Catholic to walk in spiritual blindness.
“If there is an official break between Traditionalists and Rome it will
be the fault of liberal fanatics who have plagued the Church for over 45
years.”
No, It will be a result of the SSPX’s stubborn unwillingness to admit they were wrong.
Traditio,
I am not a liberal fanatic. The point is the SSPX interprets tradition itself differently. They make no distinctions between dogma, doctrine, or discipline. They even do not understand pre V2 church documents.
” Then there is where the SSPX speaks officially through His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX.”
Fellay, called V2 the work of the Jews, who were the enemies of God, and said Jews and Protestants were going to hell. He still calls the New Mass, heresy and denies the presence of the Eucharistic Lord in it.
Where are you getting your information from?
Larry, Pope Benedict XVl gave the answer to the SSPX concerning Vatican ll. The Holy Father called upon the Church to re-interpret Vatican ll in “Light of Tradition”. He expressed to the SSPX that their theologians would be very instrumental in this task. What I stated came from Bishop Fellay’s official statements. Bishop Fellay made it known to the Holy Father who the Cardinals, Archbishops and Bishops were, that were trying to destroy the reconciliation. The Holy Father found it necessary to rebuke Archbishop Mueller more than once. Example, Mueller one morning officially declared the talks between Rome and the SSPX as over. In the evening of the same day Mueller recanted what he stated and spoke of furthering the talks with the Society. Mueller also gave a deadline of Feb, 28 2013 as the last day for the SSPX to sign the Doctrinal Preamble. Pope Benedict intervened and official stated that that the talks will resume in the reign of the next Pope. If there is an official break between Traditionalists and Rome it will be the fault of liberal fanatics who have plagued the Church for over 45 years.
For another thing, it is clear to me that it is not OTHER peoples’ “false interpretation of Vatican II” which is the problem, but the Society’s OWN “false interpretation of Vatican II,” i.e. that it constitutes at least in part a rupture with the past and cannot, at least in part, be accepted. Traditio, I think you’re on a collision course with reality, because at some point events will force you to choose between your love of the Church and your regard for SSPX. The two sides are nowhere near reconciling, because there has been no movement whatsoever on the above point.
Traditio—I think you’re swallowing SSPX’s propaganda points rather than pausing to ask yourself whether any of the above makes sense. I find the idea that Cardinal Levada pulled a bait-and-switch without the knowledge or approval of Pope Benedict completely preposterous and not credible. For one thing, the Society could have called Levada out by going to Pope Benedict, or straight to the press if Benedict would not see them. Levada couldn’t have gotten away with such a deception in the end, and I’m sure he would have sense enough to realize this.
Some very good comments and others not so good. When it comes to what the Society says, there are three things to remember. Some priests of the Society pretend to speak for the Society but it is only their personal opinions. There are enemies of the SSPX who falsly put words in the Society’s mouth. Then there is where the SSPX speaks officially through His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX. There were two Doctrinal Preambles, the first was agreed upon by the Society to be sighned. Then Cardinal Levada cast a wrench into it by drafting a new Doctrinal Preamble knowing the Society would not sign it. The SSPX is very well organized, sedevantists are not permitted and are expelled. There are problems that the SSPX cites and they are not groundless. Example, Bishop DiNoia made an official statement that the Jews need not convert. The SSPX pointed from the Council Documents themselves that state the Jews must accept Christ Our Lord and convert. This is what the SSPX is up against. According to Bishop Fellay many Cardinals, Archbishops and Bishops have been in communication with the SSPX, letting them know there are modernists in Rome working hard to destroy the Society. They want no reconciliation with the SSPX, the Society is a real threat to them and their false interpretation of Vatican ll.
If I were pope, I would not have done this because I think it departs from the expectation placed on regular priests of following the rubrics. However, I am not the pope, nor the judge of popes. Even more, if a pope should sin, I don’t have to answer for his sin. If what he has done is wrong, God will find a way to bring about the greater good from it. If what he has done is not wrong, then we are still beneficiaries of whatever good may come of it. We should live our lives ready to answer for our own actions and let the pope answer for his own actions whether they be for good or for ill. May God help him that his actions may always be for good since in the end he alone will have to answer for them.
For many years, however, I have also read disturbing reports that at least SOME Society priests and bishops at least SOME of the time have delivered politically-tinged homilies that appear to attack the American form of government (as opposed to the ACTIONS of our government from time to time) and American patriotism—and also appear to express administration for European Monarchism and 20th Century Fascism as embodied by such leaders as Mussolini and Hitler. This, if true, I would find highly objectionable and repugnant.
As for the quality and content of SSPX’s homilies—I am sure that on general matters of faith and morals they are of exceptionally high quality, at least when they are not attacking or impugning Vatican II.
“It is my further understanding that SSPX refuses to do this, preferring instead to view Vatican II as part of a “hermeneutic of rupture” with the past, and therefore unacceptable (at least in part.)”
Yes, this is the same line of argument used by radical liberals to push their own theology. They argue that if the church changed once it can change again.
Both sides fail to understand what change means.
Dogma is fixed, doctrine develops, discipline changes.
It is therefor my OPINION that SSPX cannot now or ever compromise on this point. Certainly the Holy See will never give ground on this issue. My prediction: SSPX and the Holy See will NEVER reconcile, and at some point the Holy Father (whoever he may be at the time) will have to clarify that Catholics cannot in good conscience associate themselves with SSPX.
My understanding of the impasse between the Holy See and SSPX is that Rome demands that the Society accept the documents of Vatican II as being incapable of error against faith and/or morals, and as being part of what Benedict XVI called a “hermeneutic of continuity” with 2,000 years of Catholic teaching, because Vatican II was an ecumenical council of the world’s bishops, approved by the pope, and for that reason is a Magisterial exercise of the highest order. It is my further understanding that SSPX refuses to do this, preferring instead to view Vatican II as part of a “hermeneutic of rupture” with the past, and therefore unacceptable (at least in part.) It is my understanding that, rather than being a peripheral issue, this is in fact THE central issue to SSPX’s reason to exist.
Traditio,
The SSPX refused, to accept the CDF’s “Doctrinal Preamble”. I know that V2 was not a dogmatic council, since dogma is fixed. But their conspiracy theories, that V2 was a work of Masons, Jews etc, etc is sad.
This also plays into the hands of modernists, who use V2 as an excuse to change dogma.
Read this and Weep.
Traditionalists’ “expert” on Pope Francis is a Holocaust denier
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/feastofeden/2013/04/traditionalists-expert-on-pope-francis-is-holocaust-denier/
savvy, Is the SSPX still in schism? That is a question which is debatable. Bl. John Paul ll worked feverishly for a reconciliation. The SSPX has those in Rome and the faithful around the world asking many questions. Because of the SSPX great debates are on. What was Vatican ll and what was it not? Pope Benedict XVl lifted the excommunications of the 4 SSPX Bishops, offered them a Papal Prelature where no other Bishop would be able to continue pushing them around. The SSPX seeks the greater glory and honor of God through the preservation of the Church in the manner pointed out by Christ through Tradition. If one wishes to know what God really asks of us, just listen to the sermons of the SSPX Priests, they were very well formed in the Traditional style Seminaries. How can one speak charitably about a heresy called modernism. Of course we have Charity for the modernist but zero charity for modernistic heresies. We do not speak with sugar coated words but with straight forwardness. To speak with sugar coated words is to speak with lies.
Traditio,
I am also tired of the mental games and SSPX politics, to justify their break from Rome. A person or organization that does not accept the full authority of the Holy Father is NOT Catholic. They are the same as the modernists, they rally against.
Traditio,
The SSPX is still in schism and has not accepted the conditions set out by Rome. I do agree about the errors of modernism, but there is no point in knowledge, if you lack the charity to be able to explain it to others.
savvy, I don’t deny that Protestants, Muslims and Jews are our allies when it comes to the evils you mention. You say you do not blame casting crowns, I do! You as of yet do not know the heretical views she has displayed in the past or perhaps you hold the same views. As for the SSPX I have a great admiration for them, they are fighting to keep the Catholic Church Catholic. Those who do not understand the SSPX comes from ignorance of what they are all about. Were it not for them the Church founded by Christ would have already disintegrated. As for Pope Francis he will not, I’m sure break with the view Bl. John Paul ll and Pope Benedict XVl had of the SSPX. Pope Benedict stepped down, but all he said as Pope stands as firm as rock and it cannot be so easily dismissed. The real ugliness is the resurgence of the heresy of modernism condemned as the mother of all heresies by St. Pius X. Modernism or liberalism is a heresy that engulfed Christ’s Church for over 45 years causing massive destruction to the Church and the loss of many souls. It is the intention of all traditionalists to battle this satanic evil and crush it. And we have for its foundation “Caritas” Charity.
Traditio,
I am not talking about revelation here, since both sides are aware of theological differences, but natural reasoning and social issues, such as abortion, gay marriage etc. Evangelicals are our allies, in the war on the family and religious rights.
The thing is I have come across the ugliness displayed by Sedevantists, SSPX etc, hence I do not blame Casting Crowns.
I also understand your concerns about liberalism in the church. Look at this way, the dark underbelly of Catholic liberalism has not been exposed, the way it has with schismatic groups.
It will with this Pope, because they simply cannot dismiss him as right-wing or reactionary, when he does not go their way.
savvy, Building bridges is good. But how can one build bridges when one side completely destroys those bridges. Such as the True presence of our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, The most Holy Purity of Our Lady, the Papacy, the Church as true guardian of the truth, the Seven Sacraments ect… These are hardline theological points, as a matter of fact the most solid of all theological points. That is why we remain separated. The truth of the truth is that if evangelicals continue to reject the truth as taught by the Holy Roman Catholic Church we will never have true unity. That is why Christ prayed “Et Unum Sint”.
Traditio,
Despite theological differences, Evangelicals are our allies, on key issues. We need to build bridges, not burn them.
Casting Crowns, The Popes I pray to and ask intercession of, are Ven. Pius Xll, Bl. John XXlll, Ven. Pope Paul Vl, Servant of God Pope John Paul l and Bl. John Paul ll. You and I have exchanged comments in the past. So why are you smearing me with this falsehood that I am a sedevacantist. I have always pointed you out as a true liberal, calumniating for the sake of your own ends. Please don’t try to invent or reinvent my Roman Catholic Faith founded on the Rock of Peter by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Why you as an anti-Catholic post on a Catholic site I will never know. May Mary Mediatrix of all Graces and Co-Redemtrix pray for us both.
@Traditio, yes we know you as part of the underground Catholic “sect” of people who think every Pope since John XXIII are illegitimate and the church has been apostate ever since. We have all stood behind you waiting in line for communion at Mass. The entire line can’t move because you and your people are 4 deep and refuse to take communion from a female Eucharistic minister. Somehow, unless you take communion from a priest only, it’s a mortal sin just like Pope Francis washing the feet of women.
Casting Crowns, I once went by the user-name of Angelo. Remember me? I will not even bother to engage in comments with someone who only dislikes Christ’s Church.
savvy, I mostly agree with you. Never in my life had I dared speak out against a Pope. I was wrong to have done that. The Vicar of Christ is the voice of God on earth and I promise my obedience to Francis l. I may be unhappy with some of his approaches but I will adapt. One thing that has not changed is my love for the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Another thing that I will not change is my battle against liberalism. That liberals think we must get with the times, I ask have they taken a good look at the times lately. They wish to make the Church subject to the world and Ven. Pope Paul Vl answers them clearly, “Be in the world but not of the world”. Liberals devastated the Church and even Pope Francis l has spoken out forcefully on that. I read recently that the Pope as Cardinal under his own Jesuit Order suffered immensely for daring to defend the teachings of the Church.
@Traditio: [“If I get a flat tire on Saturday morning and am too lazy to change it, deciding to do it on Sunday, THE LORDS DAY! Then I commit mortal sin.”]
.
Legalism seems rule your relationship with Christ. There is no evidence of grace. You should thus live life twice on Saturday and simply stay in bed on Sunday just to avoid the possibility of committing sin.
Traditio,
Liberals are not beyond redemption. We no longer live in a Christian culture. The Pope is evangelizing and people are taking note. You should be glad. You are setting up a false opposition, which is only going to play into the hands of the enemy, who wants a divided church and wants a fight. Stop feeding the sharks!
Co-relation does not signify cause. You think the church will be fixed, if we become more traditional and drive out all the heretics. The Liberals think, it will be fixed if we only get with the times.
You are BOTH wrong. Christianity is about changing people, not institutions. Change starts with each person. Start with yourself.
You BOTH have more in common with each other, than you do with the rest of us.
Its funny, when Ven. Paul Vl, Bl. John Paul ll and Benedict XVl were being eaten alive by liberals it was fair game. Now people are criticising Pope Francis and the liberals are talking obedience. ??? People don’t want to go back to the dark ages of the 60’s and 70’s. That is why they have legitimate concern. As a traditional minded Catholic I say we must move forward with the reform of the reforms. We don’t want to go backwards.
Casting Crowns, You responded to my comment. You have posted a lot before so its well known that you don’t like the Church and never have. If I get a flat tire on Saturday morning and am too lazy to change it, deciding to do it on Sunday, THE LORDS DAY! Then I commit mortal sin. If I get a flat tire on Sunday and replace it on Sunday then there is no sin as it would be necessary. This is a lesson on necessary and unecessary servile work and labor. There really is a difference.
I have a suggestion: since many commentators on this blog affirm that this pope is a false pope let us send the cardinals to Rome, let them exorcize Pope Francis and elect a new pope. .... C’mon people, are we even Christinas with all the back and forth accusations, attacks and lack of charity?
Let us not use the Gospel to attack each other; let us read and Pray with the Gospel. Jesus said, “You will know them by their fruit”. It is not the mass in Latin, or in English, or in Spanish, or in Italian, or in Portuguese, or in whatever language that transforms the bread into the Body of Jesus, or the wine into the Precious Blood of Christ. It is the fact that we receive His Body and drink of His Blood that should transform us and service our brothers and sisters in love.
God is above all the rubrics, above all languages, above all divisions. Let us pray for each other. And yes, let us pray for our beloved Pope Francis, so that God may continue to inspire him and give him strength for the office that the Holy Spirit chose him.
Well said, Davez.
Jesus’ healed on the Sabbath. He picked wheat on the Sabbath with his disciples. David and his companions eating the consecrated bread. But why did Peter have the dream of all the animals coming down upon him. Why did God tell Peter to “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”? That was against the Law of Moses. It was because the door to the Gentiles and their salvation had to be opened. At that moment, the New Jerusalem became Catholic—the universal church. Jerusalem wasn’t only for the Jews anymore.
Like Peter, we must be able to evangelize the mainstream of the world. It can’t be done hiding within traditions of men. As painful as it is for us to go out into the dirty world, we must go. But when we realize those who are in the darkest alleyways are no dirtier than us in our, then it becomes easy. We repent and God sends us out. We end up shining His light in the darkest alleyways, and what do we find in those dark alleyways? We find our own hearts. The light shines and rats scurry away. The wretches found are lonely, scared and hungry.
We must be obedient to the authority God gives us. However, God and his love and mercy trumps those rules. But the real thing to consider is when am I trumping God’s will for my own purpose. We can only look inside for that. We can’t look at what others are doing. We can’t judge Pope Francis for his actions. We can’t judge our local priest who gives the Eucharist to the divorced and remarried woman. We can only look inside and ask, “Are my actions trumping the will of God.” Am I loving Jesus or am I lusting for self-glory.
The sad thing about this debate is that so many are scared. Fear is driving their belief system. They are afraid that their ‘Catholicity’ will crumble because some rules are changed. They are afraid that evil will triumph. It won’t. We all know that. Jesus has triumphed and will continue to do so. Live in Faith and expect Jesus.
@Traditio: [“Bl. John Paul ll and Pope Benedict XVl set the example that we are not to disregard the disciplinary laws of the Church.”]
.
More Catholic cops. So Traditio, is Francis going hell for washing the feet of women? Will 5 Our Father’s and 5 Hail Mary’s save him?
.
Peter himself when his rear end was hauled before the church leaders of his day responded to people just like you in ACTS 5. “We must obey God rather than men.”
.
Maybe you shouldn’t change a flat tire on Sunday because it’s work on the “Lord’s” day.
That Pope Francis washed the feet of 2 females is very discouraging. Church law prohibits it. So why did he do it? It seems he’s setting an example that we can all disregard Church law when it does not suit our fancy. This is what has been happening in the Post Vatican ll Church. Bl. John Paul ll and Pope Benedict XVl set the example that we are not to disregard the disciplinary laws of the Church. The disregarding of Church discipline has only caused catastrophic results. We are to give obedience to the Supreme Pontiff. But how can the Holy Father expect his flock to obey him when he is setting a bad example. The Holy Father Pope Francis has only so far caused many in the Church to ask serious questions.
To Fidelis Agbaps: For all we know, YOU might be the same individual who blogs as “Maria Divine Mercy.” I refuse to believe any Catholic “prophet” who uses a cloak of anonymity to shield herself from investigation and evaluation by the local bishop. As for the alleged “prophesy,” it sounds like an invitation to schism and sedevacantism.
Maria Divine Mercy has nothing to do with the authentic message of the Divine Mercy devotion which was given solely to St. Faustina. This person MDM does not reveal herself, therefore no one can know who her Bishop is or if she is obedient or not to the Church. In fact nobody knows anything about her. Therefore how can one believe in her ‘messages’ as one does not know who it is who is giving them. The Lord does not duplicate anything, nor any private revelation, nor does he lie to people or deceive people. If anything Maria DM is used to undermine the true message of Divine Mercy which the evil one hates as the prayers and devotion saves many souls. It is very sad to see people seeing Holy Thursday as primarily a foot washing event rather than concentrating on the Holy Eucharist which was the greatest gift God gave us on that Holy Night, the Gift of Himself. God bless you.
@Fidelis: Yes, it’s clear that Daniel’s dreams projected visions of the end times. In the OT, Amos 3:7 wrote “Surely the Lord God does nothing unless He reveals His secret counsel to His servants the prophets.” If this is true, then God has already revealed to us what the future holds. We needn’t worry. Daniel 2 begins to reveal Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of what will take place in the latter days (aka the “end times) including the statue representing the four beasts each reflecting the (now) past kingdoms of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome. Of course this was a mystery because aside from Babylon, the future kingdoms had not yet come to pass. The study of Daniel indicates the next kingdom will be the “Ancient of Days”—that is, the Kingdom of God. For those who believe in Christ we know the King is coming. The “terrible” Day of the Lord with His wrath, though, will not be executed upon those who have trusted in Him. We have that security.
.
The larger issue is this. Set your eyes upon Christ and not who the current occupant of Peter’s chair is. Not Faustina, Padre Pio or anyone else. We know the anti-Christ will arise and yes, (as you indicate) some feel he may rise from the papacy. But we should be watchful and living the gospel of Jesus Christ. Some here are bent on observance of any and all church tradition when the gospel is the real yardstick.
.
Paul’s letter in 1 Corinthians attempts to keep anxious new Christians centered on a life in Christ and not to be overly concerned with the imminent return of Jesus. Surely it’s important to study and be aware of prophesy but not at the expense of worry and anxiety. God is sovereign and has complete control over what’s going on. Nothing surprises Him. We have that hope and assurance as we walk with Christ daily. Regarding the conditions of the world, Hebrews 13:14 sums it up best: “For this world is not our permanent home; we are looking forward to a home yet to come.” Jesus already has promised He has a place prepared for you “that where I am you may be also.”
I’m just blown away by this discussion. I don’t think I’ve ever gone to a church where men only were invited to the foot-washing ritual. I’ve had my feet washed several times. Our whole family has, including our son when he was a small boy. In fact, when we were leading the religious education program at our church, the priests would ask us to seek out volunteers among our families so there would be a nice cross-section for Holy Thursday. It has never occurred to me that there was anything unusual about this.
Savvy:
Most devout Catholics today say the Divine Mercy chaplet and marvel when they read the Diary of St. Faustina. I hope it should come as no surprise to you that for decades she was condemned by the Vatican. But because you cannot win in a fight against Christ, the same Church that condemned her now recognizes her as a Saint! Like St. Faustina, every single person sent by God has not found it easy. Again, do you believe in the Bible as the revealed Word of God? If you do, then you must agree with me that the Books of Daniel and Revelation talk about the end of time false prophet. The issue is whether this pope is he. The messages from MDM just started in 2010, and from experience, it is too short a time to be confirmed or discounted by the Church. Look at how long Medjugorje has been going but still without the official Church’s approval. What makes MDM controversial is that her messages concern the end time, which the Bible itself says would be fraught with many difficulties. As a Catholic, I pray that this pope is not the false prophet. My family and I pray for him everyday, and hope that the false prophet does not even come from within the Catholic Church. But what if he is? What is MDM’s messages are actually coming verbatim from Christ? Again, patience and prayer is what we need in these troubled times instead of the harsh comments against MDM.
What are you going to do? Fire the Pope and become a Sedevacantist?
Fidelis Agbaps,
Who cares what MDM says? Private revelation is not part of the deposit of faith.
67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.
Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.
Casting Crowns:
The media’s adulation or lack thereof has no bearing at all on my salvation. You miss the point. The Book of Daniel and The Book of Revelation both say there will be an end-of-time false prophet. Many mystics, including St. Francis of Assisi that I cited said as much. The issue is whether or not the current occupant of the Chair of St. Peter is the false prophet. MDM says he is. You, Jimmy, Miravelle and a lot of other people say the Pope is not, and in fact think MDM is crazy. My point is this: because of the fruits of MDM’s prophecies (including the many powerful prayers that thousands of her followers are now saying daily, many people now going to confessions, attending holy masses and receiving the sacraments), and, importantly, because some of her prophecies that were initially discounted as crazy have come true (no matter how one tries to parse them), we should wait further and see before using some of the harsh languages against her. By the way, I read that her local bishop has said he is withholding judgment on her prophecies until after The warning. Why not you do the same, instead of the possibility of finding out later that you were wrong all along. That’s all. Prayer and patience is all I am suggesting.
@Fidelis: And how does love (or dislike, for that matter) by the media concerning Pope Francis have any affect on your own salvation? It doesn’t.
.
The segment of Catholics who think the last non apostate Pope was Pius XII back in the 50’s need to get a life. When you face the judgment the Pope will not be standing next to you pleading your case. It’s just you before Christ and it’s not likely you will questioned on whether your choice of Mass was the Latin instead of the Novus Ordo.
.
Keepers of the Law. More invented rules and regulations. Keep piling them on. Modern day Pharisees. See what Jesus had to say about you in Mark 7. Where does grace fit in? There is none. You make Christianity nothing more than legalism. The gospel and love of Christ really have no meaning to you,—just meritorius and prideful “works” which Jesus said are nothing but fithly rags to Him.
In sum, MDM will either rise or collapse with the fulfillment or lack thereof of her other prophecies such as The Warning and the dramatic alteration of the Holy Eucharist. If these do not come true, then we can disregard her. But if she is severely criticized and the dissemination of her prophecies impeded as some here are doing, you may end up finding out that you were fighting against God if her prophecies come true. Instead of using some of the caustic language about her that I read herein, I suggest we pray, pray, pray some more and be patient. Thank you.
Additionally, I recently read the Book of Daniel and The Revelation in the Holy Scripture, and was shocked to find that everything MDM has said are in the Bible. I am also surprised to see the liberal media reaction to this pope, which contradicts Jesus’s own words that “If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.” (John 15:19). When was the last time an authentic prophet or pope from God has received this kind of love from the liberal media. Instead of totally throwing away the prophecies of MDM, I suggest to those who are not convinced to adopt a wait-and-see attitude and pray. By the way, google the end time prophecy of St. Francis of Assisi and you would be surprised that St. Francis said things similar to what MDM is now saying.
First, MDM prophesied about two years ago that Pope Benedict would be forced out and would be replaced by a false prophet. A lot of people said she was crazy, as it would be impossible to have two living popes. It happened this year, and people are now arguing over the peripherals, namely, whether Pope Benedict resigned or was forced out. Second, MDM prophesied that those with their eyes would notice during Holy Week by the action of the new Pope that would show he was not sent by Christ. The new pope arrogantly disregarded the Church’s existing liturgical law and washed women’s feet on Holy Thursday, and people are now arguing whether what he did was charity or disobedience. When The Warning takes place, I would not be surprised to see some people try to argue away that also.
One point that I think many are missing is the fact that the people receiving the foot washing NEEDED Jesus, or God wouldn’t have placed them in that room. They NEEDED this particular act of mercy and love and healing. Like Casting Crowns wrote above, foot washing is about being cleansed by Jesus’ blood. The Muslim woman needed Jesus to cleanse her. Yes, it’s different than the sacraments. But it also isn’t. God put her in the chair. Jesus washed her feet, not poor Pope Francis.
“Because the rules on the Mass are written down, it is best that all
priests must follow them, especially the Pope, so as to make good example
for all priests and lay people alike”
Brian, this is an “optional” rule, not an “essential” one. You are only playing into the hands of those who will use this as an excuse to think the fundamental matter of the sacrament can be altered, such as male priests, men and women in marriage etc.
Do not be dogmatic about the wrong things.
To Brian: My response to your #1 observation: that’s your opinion, to which you are entitled—but it clearly is NOT the opinion of the Vicar of Christ—and he’s the boss, not you or me. He is the inheritor of Christ’s pledge to Peter, “Whatever you bind on earth…(etc)” not you or me. #2 That sounds suspiciously like, “Six days you have for curing people—you should not cure on the Sabbath.” #3 You concede that “of course he can change the rules,” but that doesn’t go far enough. The fact is that as the pope he is not even BOUND by purely disciplinary rules, because those are issued and amended and rescinded at will by popes. You can say that he “should” have formally changed the rule first, but that is only your opinion. HE DOESN’T HAVE TO!
@Brian: [“So the humility and service that He showed are an example for the future priest hierarchy. As such, I believe that it should be done only with priests.
.
Brian, you’re only repeating something someone once told you and it “sounded” good thus it must be true. Sorry, but that’s false teaching.
.
Refer to John 13: 8-10— ““No,” said Peter, “you shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.” Then, Lord,” Simon Peter replied, “not just my feet but my hands and my head as well! Jesus answered, “Those who have had a bath need only to wash their feet; their whole body is clean.”
.
The washing of feet has no exclusivity to only Catholic priests. Unless Christ washes you personally with His blood you also will have no part with Him.
I agree with poster “Johnno” above. I LOVE our new Pope, but I think he should correct himself and issue an apology for his own lapse of judgement here. The reasons are:
1. The washing of feet done by Christ was done in the context of the Last Supper, and He did it only to the apostles. So the humility and service that He showed are example for the future priest hierarchy. As such, I believe that it should be done only with priests. Lay people can do the same for each other as an emulation of Christ, but that should be separate from the priest’s action.
2. Christ had served the poor, the sick, women, etc. during his whole ministry on Earth. He did not just show his humility and charity only with the washing of feet on Holy Thursday. Therefore, priests (and Pope) have plenty of opportunities to emulate those qualities at other times outside of Mass.
3. Because the rules on the Mass are written down, it is best that all priests must follow them, especially the Pope, so as to make good example for all priests and lay people alike. Of course he can change the rules but that should be made in the normal manner so that they will be observed by all Catholics in the future as well.
I think he can show even greater humility and charity to Catholics and everyone outside of Church by correcting this mistake publicly; it’s also an opportunity for outsiders to learn about our Church. I think! It’s not something of great import but I still think that’s the correct reasoning.
Everyone is in need of washing for we are all sinners. This “feet washing” event was only a precursor to how Believers are made washed clean by the blood of the cross. It’s also how sinners get their name written in the Lamb’s Book of Life. . . . Only those who have been washed in the blood.
“I must be one of the few catholics who was more shocked at others reaction to the pope’s action than at what he did.”
Me too. The sad part is that instead of seeing this is about service. One side is playing the liturgical police, accusing the Pope of breaking the law, and the other is looking at this as way to further their own sinister agendas.
They should both be ashamed.
I must be one of the few catholics who was more shocked at others reaction to the pope’s action than at what he did. In my experience what he did was normal. Any church I’ve ever attended for Holy Thursday has done the feet washing to a cross section of the parish; men, women, children, RCIA, and one time, anyone who felt called. I was not aware that washing the feet of any more than 12 people or of anyone other than men was cause for such an uproar. As for its connection to the priesthood the ceremony was always explained to me as a reminder that in order to lead you must serve others.
As far as those complaining about women being left out of leadership in the church I would suggest you look at the gender makeup of the different committees, councils, boards and other groups at your parish. I would bet that women outnumber men in all more than 2-1. Just because we don’t dress in vestments and preach on Sunday doesn’t mean we don’t run everything the rest of the week!
@cassie: [“To me this looks like false humilty under the disguise of charity. Remember, Moses struck the rock twice in disobedience. His intentions were good—to give water to his people—but God told him only ONCE. He was punished and banned from entering the Promised Land becasue of his disobedience.”] ——-Of course Cassie is going to cite for us where in the gosple Jesus said “whose” feet should or should not be washed.
.
[“The Pope had to know that this was going to get attention.”] ——-Cassie is going to tell us WHAT the Pope “had” to know.
.
[“True humility is not drawing attention to oneself.”] ——-Cassie is going to tell us *WHAT* the Pope’s intentions are (or were?).
.
[“Be wary of things being done in CHARITY. When you act on obedience then the humility follows.”] ——-Let’s all be as cynical as Cassie whenever charity is performed. She would also prefer the Pope first be obedient to her.
.
[“I will be watching this Pope carefully.”] —Just what the Pope needs, more people like Cassie playing Catholic Pharisees. Salvation is not found in legalsim but in Christ. John the apostle pulled this Cassie attitude in Mark 9 and Jesus had to set him straight also.
Let’s not forget that Christ allowed a woman to wash HIS feet.
Perhaps the Holy Father really believes the myth that woman have been unjustly persecuted by the Church. Or maybe he washed the feet of two females to dispel the myth spread by feminists.
Sounds like a bunch of pharisees are getting their phylacteries all in a twist… There’s a reason Christ had to correct them more than once.
A veritable pretzel. Rubrics? What rubrics?
This points to a great need for all us to step outside our comfort zone and get more involved in our own communities.
Cassie, I don’t think the Pope has caused chaos, but rather is making people step outside of their comfort zone and think about how Christ lived. Jesus did not command the apostles to wash the feet of other men, rather he showed them that they are to serve, rather than be served. I don’t remember him saying in the Bible, “Do this in memory of me” , as he did with the Eucharist.
Your friend shouldn’t feel betrayed by her priest. I am a woman and had my feet washed this Holy Thursday by our Bishop! And while he was doing it, he asked me to pray for him, and I realized then ( before all this hoopla about the pope) that this man really does need our prayers to remain a servant, because too many people fall all over themselves trying to serve him. It must be hard for them to be humble.
This is not false humility. Pope Francis has been doing these types of things for years and years. For him, it is the only way to walk in the footsteps of Christ, and he is showing those of us who have forgotten, how it is done.
Thanks for a great article, Jimmy! I think it’s hard for us, as Americans, to recognize a truly pastoral heart. I find that we tend to get weighed down in “legalities” - and may err on the side of seeing legalities where there aren’t any. A product of our culture I suppose. Our Catholic religion should be pulling us out of that, though, to look within Christ’s own heart. I feel that Pope Francis is trying very hard to be Christ centered. I pray I can follow his example.
Posted by savvy on Monday, Apr 1, 2013 2:23 PM (EDT):
“The religion breeds male control which is no different than other suppressive organizations.”
So the existence of separate washrooms, for men and women is about suppression?
**********
Public washroom for both men and women? No Way! How can I get a gay quickie if both sexes use the same urinal?
To me, this is no different that my son stealing loaves of bread from a store and saying, “But Mom, as an act of charity, I did it to feed the poor.” Breaking the law is breaking the law. To me this looks like false humilty under the disguise of charity. Remember, Moses struck the rock twice in disobedience. His intentions were good—to give water to his people—but God told him only ONCE. He was punished and banned from entering the Promised Land becasue of his disobedience. The Pope had to know that this was going to get attention. True humility is not drawing attention to oneself. Even the Bible said Christ was obedient even to death on a cross. Be wary of things being done in CHARITY. I agree with one commentor—the road to hell is paved with good intentions. When you act on obedience than the humility follows. I will be watching this Pope carefully and pray for him. He was not thinking of what his fellow priests would be thinking and watching. He has caused nothing be chaos and it has started in our own church. My friend was invited by our parish priest to have her feet washed at the Holy Thursday Mass. She declined and gave him a copy of the church law stating that it is to be only men. His comment to her was, “Oh don’t tell me that you are one of THEM.” Now, my friend feels completely betrayed by her Holy Father, because our parish priest keeps printing off articles about Pope Francis washing the feet of women and giving them to her. Not only that, a priest in one of our local parishes who is a new pastor and completely faithful to the Magisterium chose to have all men at his first Holy Thursday service knowing that he would get perscuted but stood with confidence on the fact that Rome uses all men. I was told that he was totally shaken up before the service when he was told that Pope Francis washed the feet of woment. Thanks alot, Pope Francis. You have done nothing but cause chaos. Exactly what Satan wants. And for all of those who say that their parish priests have been washing the feet of women for years, well guess what? They are being disobedient and are not suppose to be doing so! Jimmy, I heard you on the Al Crespa show yesterday and I agree with the one caller who said he thinks you are “twisting pretzels” to make what Pope Francis did okay. God help us, pray for the Church and Pope Francis.
When we encounter Christ Jesus his two-edged sword can discern joints, marrow and the heart as John’s Revelation explains. What we’re seeing here is just that. Some see a man filled with love and compassion. Some see a trickster and hate. Others see a new tool for their agenda. And the most pitiable fill the seats in the Colosseum hoping to witness some good gore.
Through Christ-like action, and our interpretation of it, we find out more about our sin. If we look carefully in our own heart, we will be appalled and we will repent. Then with repentance we come yet closer to our beloved Christ.
I expect that Pope Francis will be just that. He (through Christ) will help us discern our hearts. We need more repentance and less arguing.
When we argue we are usually justifying our sin. Christ Jesus will justify that which is righteous. We have no need to justify ourselves to others or to him.
Yes, this is tradition with the small t. Dogma is fixed, doctrine develops, discipline changes, according to time, place, etc.
Some of these comments are very sad. Although I understand that Church rules are not to be thrown out but I see Pope Francis’s action in a much more generous light. I do not see it as egotistical but rather one of respect and love.
Excellent explanation, Mr. Akin.
I read a few comments and I think we need to be careful not to become legalistic or to have the same attitude of the Pharisees. Wasn’t our Lord criticized exactly for the same reasons that Pope Francis is being criticized?
Our role as Catholics is to love the Pope, to pray for him and offer sacrifice for his difficult Pastoral office; to be faithful to him as the Vicar of Christ on earth and our spiritual father.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains in no.882 and I quote: “The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.”“For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”
We also need to understand the difference between Apostolic Tradition with capital T, and traditions, “t” with lower case.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says on no. 83 and I quote:
“Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.”
Again, thank you for a great article.
Jimmy has been censoring some posts.
In answer to Bob’s comment of March 28 10:23 p.m., that we should “discover the East!! Orthodox!” if he means “Orthodox” with a capital C, we may NOT become members of the Orthodox churches, despite their valid sacraments, because they are in schism. That is emphatically NOT an option for Catholics. If he means with a small “C”, i.e. the Eastern Uniate Churches, that is perfectly all right if one wishes. It should be noted, however, that Francis is just as much their pope as he is ours. That is why we’re allowed to go there as Catholics. As for the foot-washing, that is a disciplinary matter, one which the pope may change or even disregard without formally changing it, because he is above canon law and can do that. Disregarding it may prove a public relations blunder, but it is NOT improper.
@SM: Obama,—Christian? That’s hilarious. His Chicago and WDC Pastors,—Christian? Gay marriage,—Christian? Abortion,—Christian? —Partial Birth Abortion,—Christian? You are perplexed because you don’t know the gospel, ACTS and NT letters. If you did you wouldn’t be making such foolish statements on this blog.
.
[“You see everything as “good” or “evil”—and you define good and evil according to your religion.”] Judgment of what is good (holy and pleasing to the Lord) and what is evil (sin) has already been defined by God’s word.
@savvy: What is even more ridiculous was the Easter (??) sermon given by Obama’s Washington DC pastor yesterday.
Claude Javier,
And the other side is attacking the previous Pope for only washing the feet of men. You are both obsessed with washing feet, and being dogmatic about the wrong things.
All you misogynists in an uproar over Our Holy Father Francis washing the feet of women are trembling in fear. In what other ways will he honor women and cause you grief? God bless Francis, long may he lead Holy
Mother Church!
Zane Zeigler,
You are right. The rad trad behaviour is shameless.
“Biblical study can never go beyond the God question, unfortunately because God is supposedly infinite. He is beyond inquiry. Therefore, the conversation always stops there. This is not an intellectual way to view the world.”
SM. You have Christianity confused with Islam, where Allah is so infinite that not even time and space can contain him and it’s impossible to know him. In Christianity God, steps into our time and space becomes one of us. God is BOTH finite and infinite here.
I am glad you are interested in these questions, but this is not the right forum. I could recommend books, if you are interested.
.
@SM: The gospel is not subject to your world-view of “religion” versus science. Faith in Christ is about the gift of faith and believing what He said. The reference to education has nothing to do with scientific provabilities but of spiritual blindness to truth revealed not only in the gospel but of whom Jesus claimed to be—the Son of God.
It is true that both of the liturgical laws cited in this article use the Latin word, viri, in reference to the washing of the feet on Holy Thursday. However, neither of them explicitly stipulate that only men shall have their feet washed, or forbid the washing of women’s feet, nor does this seem to me to be the actual intention of the law itself. To interpret either document as stipulating that the washing of the feet is to be performed on men only is to read another law within the law. Moreover, it is manifest that Pope Francis has performed an act of audacious humility that has, for once, brought GOOD media attention to the Church, thus furthering the greater Catholic cause of evangelization. He has violated neither the letter nor spirit of the law, but has fulfilled both in charity by following the example of Christ, and to suggest that he is somehow undermining Benedict’s much needed liturgical “reform of the reform” is to draw very broad and dire conclusions based on very little evidence. As a strong proponent of the Latin Mass, it is my opinion that these attacks on Pope Francis will serve only to isolate and discredit our cause.
Radical Traditionalists and Progressives are more alike than they think.
Casting Crowns,
I do not know Susan personally, so I would rather you stick to the topic being discussed and not take cheap shots.
Casting Crowns,
The Liberals ALSO think it’s reserved for men because of the priesthood. Did you take a look at their comments?
The actual documents hold that this is neither a sacrament, nor even a necessary part of the liturgy.
@SM: You mistake fighting when the real issue is one of education. Many people hold fast to traditions which have far less importance and eternal value than the gospel. That’s why the Pharisees called Jesus a heretic, a radical and even some claimed He was insane. Keepers of the Law and Temple traditions too often seek to glorify and revel in their own self-righteousness with accusatory remarks. Case in point —the woman caught in the act of adultry. So how did all these guys know she was in the act? Were these men waiting in line to be next?
@savvy: [“I pointed out that they are BOTH wrong.”] You’re probably right. I agree w/U. The trad’s think washing feet is reserved only for men because of the priesthood. Thus these Catholics on steroids end up getting a bee in their bonnet. Time for them to grow up and graduate from Catholic parish grammar school.
.
Salvation has nothing to do with whose feet the Pope does or doesn’t wash. People who enjoy this type of Catholic legalism are like modern day Pharisees.
Susan,
I also forgot to add, that there are more female saints than male saints. There are many female doctors of the church.
@susan: For all their faults, the Catholic church is not about to marry up with the wacko National Council of Churches which ordain lesbians, make them pastors and marry gays. Rather than repenting of sin, they prefer to have their sin explained or justified. If that’s where you going with your argument, it’s gonna happen. Both Jesus and Paul warn us to be watchful for false teachers and false Christs.
.
The gospel says you’re either on the broad road which (leadeth to destruction) or to “enter by the narrow gate.” Of the narrow gate, Jesus said “and few there are that find it.”
“He’s been Pope for less than a month and already trads are screaming an liberals are cheering.”
The liberals will be disappointed soon, so nobody is happy. Yay!
Rex King,
The Pope is not trad or liberal or conservative or xyz. He is Catholic. And nobody got rid of Benedict. He resigned. Stop the speculation, without any concrete evidence.
He’s been Pope for less than a month and already trads are screaming an liberals are cheering. In any case his is left of center and it was damn smart of the conclave to choose him after getting rid of Benedict.
.
I might also point out that Mary Cambridge’s address is public information, while she volunteered the rest of what we know of her, in hopes of getting me to meet her “challenge” and/or get me to feel guilty. I’m sure you Catholic burglars and rapists will appreciate it.
Susan,
The Catholic religion also survived for over 2,000 years, without breaking into zillions of denominations, that when not attacking each other are attacking the Catholics. Leave us alone.
“The religion breeds male control which is no different than other suppressive organizations.”
So the existence of separate washrooms, for men and women is about suppression?
Jesus no doubt shocked many in his entourage when he allowed a loose woman, namely Mary Magdalen, to wash his feet with her tears and dry them with her hair. Can’t we just see the faces of the pharisees and hear their whispered comments of “shame! shame!”
Pope Francis in washing the feet of two female inmates has done something in parallel. And today’s pharisees responded by a twittering of shocked remarks.
Very similar cases.
John Patrick Grace
Casting Crowns,
The issue is the both trads and liberals are going crazy, but for different reasons. The trads are worried that the Pope broke church laws, and the liberals do not care whose feet is being washed, they just have their eyes on the priesthood.
I pointed out that they are BOTH wrong.
Jesus, we can be sure, shocked many by his entourage by allowing a loose woman, namely Mary Magdalen, to wash his feet and dry his feet with her hair. Can’t we just see the pharisees’ faces and hear their whispering?
What Pope Francis did in washing the feet of two young female inmates has apparently set some of our current pharisees atwittering with “shame! shame!”
Very similar cases.
John Patrick Grace
Huntington, West Virginia
Susan,
The leaders of the Catholic religion have not always been male. There have been female prophets, teachers, ministers, leaders, healers, and everything else. There have not been priests.
Catholic women already to everything a Protestant minister does.
What do you want a priest for? Do you even know what a priest is?
What difference does it make whose feet are being washed? Men and women are all sinners in need of washing. The washing of feet at the Last Supper was only a prelude regarding what was about to happen at Calvary. All believers who place their trust in Christ have been washed in His blood. Why else do we call it the most “precious” blood?
If the catholic religion is to survive, there needs to be a balance of representation of the genders serving our Lord. History has been our greatest teacher and the catholic leaders of the catholic religion who have been always male, have been more interested in power than what is fundamentally good for mankind. Those who do serve the lord and people retire poor poppers while the Catholic top representatives live in opulent palaces. Our lord was a humble human being unlike many of the ones who are suppose to represent him. The religion breeds male control which is no different than other suppressive organizations. Hopefully this gesture is a sign of a true representive of the lord.
He is a fooling father!!!!!!!!!!!
The rite itself is optional, so no the Pope did not break any rubrics, and no he is not going to ordain women. This is just about service, not priests.
He is saying a pox on both your houses. Nobody wins. My views are somewhere in the middle so This is fun!
@Natalie Trott: [“And as for gay marriage, Jesus Himself said, ‘EVERYONE is welcome at my Father’s table.’ “]
.
How typically ultra liberal Catholic including many liberal Protestants of the same bent. Carve out a “slice” of the gospel to suit you and dismiss those passages you dislike to mold Christ in your own image. Clearly you have no understanding of (or have ever read) the Parable of the Soils. Furthermore, if one’s name is not written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, the only place unrepentent sinners will be “welcome” is into the Lake of Fire.
How should we view it? As the annual photo-op that it is.
Pope Francis should answer his detractors in the words of Pio Nono. “Tradizione!” thundered Pope Pius IX, at Cardinal Filippo Maria Guidi of Bologna, “La tradizione son’ io!” – “I am the tradition!”
So Jimmy,
If I join your club do I get a secret decoder ring and a plaque telling me where to stand when the Rapture begins? Apparently you have more answers than most people but if I need to pay for your Revelations, how am I to know you aren’t just filling your own coffers. And if you truly want to believe that Fr. Z, isn’t a looking for his own chance at a Rapture, then don’t look at his Amazon page for what he would that posted on his wish page.
Here’s a better explanation. http://www.stopmandatumabuse.com/drupal/
Our parish priest has washed the feet of women for some years, and several priests have done this. The Parish Council at a minimum has their feet washed and we have members, of course, that are female. Tradition is a good thing, but as Jesus himself warned empty tradition that brings nothing to ones faith life is just that, empty. Pope Francis’ actions are a very good reminder of that.
See “Francis the Disturber”
at
http://www.v2catholic.com/dtimbs/2013/2013-03-31pope-francis-the-disturber.htm
My wife is excited, with all the changes Francis is making and now with this sign, it will not be long until she is ordained a priest. She is already practicing Mass! Can’t wait!
@TG—for the same reasons they allow you to comment.
National Register, why are you allowing addresses of people ont he comments. (See comment above.)They should not be posted.
Thank you Jimmy! You are my favorite Catholic apologist! I think it is ridiculous to get upset over washing feet, male or female! The evil one is hard at work to divide the Catholic Church as always - thank you for your calm voice of reason and God Bless!
http://blog.newadvent.org/
This is a link about a more official take on the complete nutter, Maria Divine Mercy
SM,
Your opinion does not count or matter to me or to anybody else here.
It’s not biblical. Not scriptural. Jesus washed feet of 12 male apostles.
The washing of feet itself is optional. So both sides arguing over whose feet should be washed, will lead to nobody’s feet being washed. Be careful what you wish for.
Natalie,
You must have missed Jesus on marriage.
SM,
Do you even understand what tradition means? Tradition refers to the deposit of faith handed down by the Apostles. Even scripture is tradition. Tradition has nothing to do with clothes, politics or culture.
Is it any wonder that so many people are leaving the church? A debate over the washing of feet?! Kudos to you Pope Francis. You have my full blessings. I admire your humility. Hopefully you can take the church in a new direction. The path back to Christ would be a good start. And as for gay marriage, Jesus Himself said, “EVERYONE is welcome at my Father’s table”.
Fr.Z has good insights into this
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/03/what-is-pope-francis-really-saying/
It is unfortunate that some consider the ceremony of the washing of the feet part of Tradition. But I think any serious Catholic should be able to distinguish between custom (tradition) and Tradition of the Church. Customs do not form the fundamental basis of our Catholic faith and so can be changed or omitted altogether when necessary,but Tradition cannot be. And so even if the Pope went against a particular custom without warning, it should not be cause for alarm since that does not introduce an alteration of any kind to the faith. In fact any Bishop, if pastoral needs suggest it, can obtain an indult from the Apostolic See to wash the feet of women during the Holy Thursday ceremonies. The Pope, of course, can to that without having to ask anyone. And please, if he does, he should not be viewed as violating Church law ad libitum; it’s not tantamount to that. A great Easter to all!
Michael Reilly,
The liberals shouldn’t be too excited either, because this does not change the rite of ordination or the function of the priesthood. I love that this is servant leadership, that he is leading the priesthood away from the image of a status symbol, to that of sacrifice. And hence restoring the sacrificial priesthood! Happy Easter!
Our Lord scandalized the Pharisees of his day, too. I guess Jesus ignored a few rubrics, huh? I love it!
Happy Easter to all. Truly, we are seeing the beginning of a resurrection. Wash those feet, Francis! You are leading by example. If any of our orthodox brothers and sisters don’t like it, why…they can just become Protestants.
Sound familiar?
Mary Cambridge,
Bravo!!
Okay, relax people. If you are wondering what this does to the church’s stance on women’s ordination. The answer is nothing, because the priesthood in general is about servant leadership. This does not change the rite of ordination or the function of the priesthood.
Thank you Jimmy, for your helping us understand, and for being faithful to our/His Catholic Church. Rather than the outcry and the fear that has been expressed by some, you faithfully look at things with an eye toward what this means and why our Pope Francis could, and did make this choice. I sincerely thank you for that. My own experience of joy, and yet some concern over this, given what I thought some might say and fear, still told me that when some Bishops have been allowed to include women in this rite, provided some Pastoral need was present, that our Bishop of Rome was choosing to show the important pastoral need of Mercy, Service, and outreach to those who are imprisoned . . among other things. As a female who once had my feet washed, and who had no idea there was some rubric that said this was not okay, I experienced a simple tender appreciation of the humility and service the Lord was offering his disciples. When I moved to a different parish in a different part of the country where this practice of washing the feet on Holy Thursday was not included in the Mass, I missed it. Seeing Pope Francis kiss their feet in a news clip was so very touching to me. It showed tenderness, it showed true service, and it mattered. I knew last night, as I read some of the stuff online in various places that was so fear based and not respectful of our Holy Father, I knew simply that I would continue to be obedient to the Magesterium/Pope no matter, and pray for those who are fearful, concerned and distrusting. I will simply pray for Unity, and I will continue to work to practice faith, hope and love, and obedience. I will seek to understand, not to fear. Again, thank you.
@Gerard Plourde—Thank you. I love the Church and the Pope in Communion with the Bishops. I believe in the Magisterial Teaching of the Faith. I believe in the Doctrine of Infallibility. If this Pope changes anything that is already considered the official teaching of the Church, I will be greatly confused. I know that Jesus said the Gates of Hell will not prevail and that a Pope has never erred in official Church Teaching on Faith & Morals to date. My only question is “Would He allow a Judas Iscariot in the End Times to betray His Church (Mystical Body) as He (Physical Body) was once betrayed on Earth?” In other words, doesn’t everything that Jesus suffered physically have to be played out mystically in the Church, on other words—One of His Own would have to betray His Church? Why do I think this way? I will keep praying and discerning. God Bless.
@ Totus Tuus
I think that the history of the churches that form the Old Catholic Church provide a cautionary tale. Having rejected the dogma of infallibility and having broken with Rome, they sought to reunification of Protestants, Anglicans (Anglo-Catholic and Protestant)and Orthodoxy. Because this limited agreement to the dogmas set forth in Nicea and Chalcedon over time the Old Catholics rejected the teachings of Trent and Fourth Lateran (Transubstantiation). Without a center tradition cannot survive. I believe that God is sovereign and that therefore the promise made by Jesus that the Papacy and the Church will preserve until the end of time is reliable.
Jimmy,
Maybe you should add this post from Father Z. comenting Ed. Peters. It is not those you linked.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/03/have-we-entered-an-age-of-a-new-gnosticism/
Best,
Pedro Erik
I find it both amusing and sad to read the litany rants and raves from supposed “faithful” Catholics, who just a few months ago would crucified anyone who dared to write anything remotely critical of then Pope Benedict XVI. Yet now, because our new Holy Father does not always live up to THEIR idea of “true” Catholicism, they feel justified in raking him over the coals. They criticized “cafeteria Catholics”, yet now they seem to be spending a similar amount of time in the aisle, picking and choosing the parts of the faith they like and trashing the rest - including the Holy Father. These supposed true and faithful Catholics criticize his humility, simplicity and dedication to Gospel values, yet fail to recognize the sinfulness of their own hubris, pride, and judgmental attitudes. Perhaps it’s time they stop trying to force upon everyone their world-view of Catholicism, and focus on living their faith; following what Jesus called us to do - love God and one another. They need to remind themselves that the same Holy Spirit that called Pope Emeritus Benedict and the Blessed John Paul II to serve God’s purpose in His Church, has called Pope Francis. Ours is not to question, but to have faith.
I don’t know what the big fuss is about. This has been going on in all the Catholic churches I’ve been associated with for the past 40 - 50 years. And why not, women make up about 80% of those serving the church!
Jesus was mocked by the traditionalists of his time too. Ignoring rules got him killed.
Holy Thursday is not intended as a literal reenactment of St. John’s text; it is an example by symbol of how we are called by Christ to treat others, even the ornery.
I add this link to provide for anyone wishing to further investigate the alleged “favorite authors” of Jorge Bergoglio.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-favorite-books-and-spiritual.html
As I mentioned in an earlier post, Sr. Dolores belongs to an order whose website is clearly linked to the New Age Movement—you can google her name and it will come up.
Also, what about the deceased Cardinal Martini of Milan? He was an oput-spoken supporter of legalized abortions, same-sex marriage, women’s ordination, etc., etc.. There are several other authors on this website who I have not had the time to investigate but the two I did investigate, seemed to be not on solid Catholic ground. Please, look into this and see for yourself. I am just trying to figure out the truth—what is really motivating Pope Francis?
I forgot to put the scripture to look up, Fidelis, to prove we must take care of the physical needs of people. Matthew 25.
Fedelis, that message makes no sense. It says he was betrayed. It says that when you promote physical needs rather than spiritual needs, you are not following Christ or following his laws. The juveniles that had their feet washed didn’t have dirty feet, so their physical need wasn’t being met. However, they were spiritually fed by this act.
What are God’s laws? Only two. Love God and love your neighbor. All 10 commandments and the beatitudes fall under those two. Are people’s physical needs included in these commandments or laws? You bet! Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the imprisoned are included. This from Christ’s words recorded in the Word of God. You better open your Bible rather than read those volumes of messages from MDM.
One of the priests in the area does the footwashing thus: he washes the feet of all who wish to come and sit and be ministered to. When I was at that mass, it did take a long time but not all came forward, and I was very touched to be included in this way.
It does seem to be that it is about service, not about priests in particular. In my church only 12 men are chosen, usually the same ones. And our priest commended these men’s service in the church at the end of the ceremony. I felt some jealousy perhaps (being a woman) and also noted a bit critically that this ceremony was to be about humility, not raising people up for our commendation.
I’m glad for what Pope Francis did.
I was so happy to learn that Pope Francis chose to have the Holy Thursday Mass at the juvenile prison. I feel that those young people will remember this all their lives. The impact of it will not be lost on them, but will enable them to grow in faith. As to choosing women, also, for the foot washing, all I can say is WONDERFUL! Several years ago, in a parish in Minnesota, women were a part of the foot washing ceremony…and I was one of those women on one occasion. It was a beautiful and humbling experience. So, I say to all the ‘nay-sayers’....get a life. Look to the Holy Father to do the right thing. And, quit putting ‘dogmatic’ implications on such things that are not dogmatic requirements of our faith. Rejoice at this Holy Season and thank God for the wisdom He imparts.
Here is Jesus’s response from MDM’s website to the washing of the feet ceremony last Thursday by the current occupant of the Chair of Peter: “Showing concern for the needs of fellow human beings is admirable. But when you promote the physical well-being of the needs of man over their spiritual needs it is not I, Jesus Christ, you follow. Humanism is not Christianity. To be Christian means surrendering all to Me, abandoning yourself in full humility at My Feet. It means allowing Me to guide you. It means obedience to My Laws and doing all that you can to show the example of My Love for you all. Today I was betrayed. Not for long can, nor will, you be deceived for once the House of God is attacked from within nothing but disorder can follow….Your Jesus”
We should intensify our prayers.
I honestly don’t understand why there is so much fuss about the Holy Father washing the feet of two women. Some argue that Christ washed only the feet of men when he instituted the Eucharist and Holy Orders. Some even go further by saying that there were no women in the Upper Room that night. If that is the case, then why is it that a good number are so inclined to exclude women on the foot washing and not at the Eucharist? If Christ intended the foot washing for men only, for sacred ordination, then why not the Eucharist too? After all, it all happened in the same event, the same place, and on the same night. What if Jesus intended the Eucharist also for men only?
@Robyn Broyles—perhaps I did not make my point clear. The new Pope says he wished he had a “poor” church and as far as I know Jesus included everyone, not just the “poor”. If he meant “poor of heart”, it would have been better for him to say this so it was clear. But, in listening carefully to his homilies, one gets the impression he is talking about the “economic” definition of poor. A Pope whose priorities are clearly economic and environmental in nature, seems, at the very least, odd to me. I truly hope that there is nothing sinister going on here. If you take the time to research into the New Age Movement you will see how this radical “eradicate” poverty from the face of the earth idea is prevalent, among other ideas such as “radical environmentalism”. I am doing my homework and I am watching and listening, and hoping for the best. And lastly, I don’t appreciate all of the “breaks” with tradition particularly in the sense that it seems to imply that the “other popes” were not humble and got it wrong. I am sorry but if anyone thinks JPII and Benedict XVI were not humble for being obedient to what the Church teaches and Her traditions, I think they are not understanding what true humility is—which is not drawing attention to yourself as someone else seems to be doing quite nicely. Also, another point, how come the media is being so quiet and saying very little that is negative? It’s unusual for them. That makes me nervous. Praying for the Holy Spirit to give Wisdom to all Catholics at this time!
@Gerald, I’m not comparing feetwashing to Alexander VI’s adultery.
What I am stating is that the Catholic-lite bloggers feel compelled to defend anything a pope does simply because he is pope. That’s a false loyalty and obedience, and leads to all manner of absurdities. Once you declare that any criticism of anything is off-limits, then you’ve placed yourself in the position of *having* to defend the indefensible. Even silence becomes criticism by conspicuous absence of praise.
I loved your explanation of what the Pope was trying to get across. Yet I feel that it will bring division in the Holy Church. I hope the Pope will try to explain himself to lessen the confusion among the Traditionalist and the Progressives. It could be a rocky start for this incredibly humble Pope Francis.
There seems to be an incredible amount of ink being spilled over this gesture. The logic of wash girl’s feet leads to female ordination is just not clear. Suppose Pope Francis washed the feet of 12 male beggars, would that be scandalous?
I will not join any debate for or against anyone who occupies the Seat of Peter. All Catholics in this debate should answer one question before continuing: “Is the Pope infallible?”.
Keep your eyes on the most important things and when in doubt ask of light from the Master Himself and He will speak to you from His Word. No one should lead you into error. The Lord changes not and His Words changes not. “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” saith He whose glorious Kingdom is forever.
Here we go call all traditionalist Pharisees. Who where the Pharisees when the majority of Cardinals, Archbishops, and Priests who gave a whoot about Pope Benedict XVI “Reform of the Reform”. Here again like after the pseudo-council, traditionalists need to prove their obedience, while the Novus Ordo crowd can go on with all the liturgical abuses, and simple ignore the rubrics, and Gregorian Chant, Ad-Orientum, etcc.. I would rather bring a poor person to Heaven on Earth and an orthodox faith rather than to just plain Earth and do what you will.
As for history in the Latin Rite it’s older than you think: when the Portuguese began to missionize south west India the Syro-Malabar Church founded by the East Syriac Rite of Bagdad in remote centuris was great impressed by the Latin Bishop ( or was it an Archbishop? in the 17th century, I believe who did the Mandatum on native men. They were moved by the humility of the rite—especially because of the caste system, they were used to! It was one of the reasons that Church entered into communion with Rome.
A Ruthenian Byzantine priest I know had this way of saying it on his way to pretty much agreeing with your analysis: the Pope removed all connection with the Priestly office and made it all about Charity (which is universal). In his own Byzantine Rite the priestly symbolism is what is maintained, as only the Bishop does it and to his priests numbering 12.
As someone has already said the feet washing took place at The Last Supper and there is no mention of women being present. Frankly I think it is stretching it to say the text refers to “disciples” in order to explain why the Pope chose to do what he did. I have no with what he did, just when he chose to do it.
I couldn’t even get through your post. The very fact that you have to ask the question “How should we understand Pope Francis Washing Women’s Feet?” points to the jacked up situation that the Church finds itself. Replace women with men in that question and you would elicit a big yawn. Don’t replace women with men and you have conservatives and traditionalists up in arms trying to explain it away.
Thanks, Michael, for your comments. They speak to me.
Maybe this link won’t—-
.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/13/pope-crimes-humanity-victims-abuse
Thought police again—maybe these links will pass.
.
Mary—We know that nothing’s going to happen now, because Benny will never leave Vatican city.
.
Also, I wrote before—if Benedict was coerced or bribed to retire, you will never know unless he makes a fuss. Not bloody likely.
.
Yes, it’s a lot of speculation, but the Vatican acted on it nevertheless:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/15/us-pope-resignation-immunity-idUSBRE91E0ZI20130215
.
The Pope is not breaking any tradition. Male-servant leadership is very biblical. What matters is that it’s the male priest washing the feet of women, not the other way around. Now, that would be scandalous at the last Supper.
Reading these comments, I, a Muslim, sense how difficult the road ahead will be for Pope Francis. He has my support, my prayers, and my love.
The scandal isn’t what the Pope did. The scandal is the “faithful” screaming about it.
Ah, that T-Bone steak and three huge meals I had on Good Friday was excellent. I figured that it is just an ecclesiastical law regarding abstinence and fasting. I mean, if the pope can disregard liturgical rules, why not imitate his contempt for ecclesiastical laws and norms?
What will it take before the cult of the pope becomes true Catholicism? Will it take Pope Francis using wooden vessels at Holy Mass…purely a liturgical norm? How about Mass without vestments…again simply a liturgical law? Will it take him downing hot dogs on Good Friday without a care?
What is so humble about this act? Was Pope Benedict being prideful by washing the feet of 12 priests on Holy Thursday, a night dedicated to the Most Blessed Sacrament and the Holy Priesthood? Was is present here is not Pope Francis’ humility, but his militant humility that reminds one of behaviors of the activists of the 1970s. Disregarding such liturgical norms shows great pride and may even be sinful…mortally sinful especially when one considers the huge scandal it has caused.
The Pharisees at Jesus’s time also got scandalize at Jesus’s disciples for not washing their hands. It seems to me that there are some modern “Pharisees” who are getting scandalize because of this.
The point isn’t about whether a woman or a man can have their feet washed, but rather about THE BREAKING OF THE RUBRICS of the Mass on a whim.
Traditionalists rightly are worried, as is anyone else trying to have a proper Novus Ordo and avoiding puppet masses and new age thingies inserted into the Mass, or Father’s off-the-cuff innovations, and particularly about using aspects of the Mass - Such as Feet-washing - about making political statements rather than focusing on the Lord.
There are too many abuses taking place during the Mass. That’s a fact.
People have been trying to fight that and show the virtue of Obedience.
Pope Francis’ actions - NOT the washing of women’s feet - BUT the breaking of a liturgical rule - EVEN if he is the Pope and on his authority can - will further insprie more rebellion by dissident and heterodox priests and liberals DESPITE that that was not his intention. It will also make the efforts of faithful Catholics whether trying to promote the Traditional Latin Mass or bring reverence back to the Novus Ordo’s jobs that much more difficult
Mere sincerity isn’t good enough. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The Pope needs to be more mindful about the battle that is raging out there. His actions, which I believe were not intentionally aimed at throwing a wrench into the plans of those trying desperately to have their priests and parishioners respect the Mass and follow Church Law, have only served to embolden them.
There are plenty of other ways to insprie prisoners or women. The Pope could’ve washed their feet, and not only their feet, but their hands and face if he wanted to, outside of the Holy Thursday Mass whose context IS ABOUT THE EUCHARIST AND PREPARATION OF THE APOSTLES AND THE PRIESTLY MINISTRY. Becase the Priesthood and Eucharist are linked closely together! Should not the identity of the priest also be just as important as the Eucharist to be emphasized on this day?
People argue that foot washing of women can become a tradition overtime. On that note, why then can’t a similar tradition also arise that the foot washing is linked to the significance of priestly roles?
Pope Francis wanted to set an example about charity, but unfortunately it will be taken as a licence by the liturgical demolitionists to do as they like, invoking the name of ‘charity’, no different than sexual immorality conducted under the guise of ‘love.’
Pope Francis needs to be craftier about the way the modernist world runs, and also needs to be mindful of the needs and efforts of those faithful Catholics who have also been trying to rebuild the Lord’s House just as St. Francis did. Pope Francis needs to work with all the other ‘Francis’ out there amongst the priests and laity. Even St. Francis revered and promoted a rich and Holy Mass, because through it we offer up our best and our obedience to the Lord.
Hey, it worked!
.
Mary—you defined the “Pope” and “Anti-Pope.” This will allow conservative and liberal Catholics to take sides.
.
You may not have a problem with what Pope Francis did so far, but this article shows that some Catholics here are having trouble dealing with what he’s done.
.
Savvy—Pope Francis is the first Jesuit Pope—certainly a different Catholic than the previous popes. Some people here have a problem that he is breaking from tradition. He has praise from a lot of liberals—Catholic or otherwise.
I’ll try the second one again:
Click Here!
Savvy and Mary Cambridge—as usual any one who has the facts gets checked for spam. I’ll try pasting the links only and hope the sources pass.
.
Click Here
.
and
.
<a >Here</a>
I’m sorry. Now you’re twisting scripture to reconcile what this man is doing with what Christ did in the upper room. The only people present at the Last Supper were Christ and his 12 disciples. Even his mother wasn’t there. Did you just think of this today? Even the priest at the Holy Thursday Mass I attended underscored the significance of who was present at the Last Supper in his homily on the establishment of Holy Orders and the Eucharist. Please, please, Jimmy and other neo-con ‘Catholics’, stop cutting off the toes off the foot to make the shoe fit.
really?
Your comments make no sense. Jody Bottum in the Weekly Standard on the difficulties of trying to fit Francis into prevailing political categories:
“A leftist who denounces the state power and cultural changes demanded by the left. A reactionary who despises the accumulation of wealth and the libertarian freedoms praised by the right. No attempt to impose liberal and conservative definitions on him will succeed.”
If Pope Francis laments society is too liberal, not traditional enough, especially when it comes to family and roles in same, I hope he remembers Holy Thursday 2012 and what he himself did that night.
SM,
You make a lot of unproven assertions. The nut who wanted to arrest the Pope belongs to a sect that is banned in Germany. Pope Benedict does not have a nice residence, but a cloistered monastery. Have you EVER been to one? If I were a criminal, I would prefer jail.
Ecclesiatical law does NOT liturgical law make.
Yes, the Holy Father is he original legislator in canon law, but liturgical law is entirely seperate. Hence, with the first CIC in 1917, they explicitly omitted liturgical law (as they did in 83) because immemorial often governed. And, YES, while the Pope CAN change the rubrics, he follows them unless he makes specific exceptions.
I have already heard from people in the Vatican that he is doing away with the silver trumpets and he has directed all pretiosa mitres to be put away.
It’s interesting to read reports of this act on Huffington Post. Some who are atheist, non-Catholics, etc. were quite impressed with this act of genuine charity and concern. That’s what will draw people to the church - not obsessive discussions over liturgical rules.
As a number of others have said it is very discouraging that some are so obsessed over liturgical laws (which BTW are NOT moral laws!) that Francis’s act of charity, generosity and in fact evangelization are completely disregarded. As long as one wants to hide in rigid interpretations of liturgical law the new evangelization will go no where.
Not sure anyone will read this so far down but if the Congregation of Divine worship is ok with bishops making pastoral decisions on this issue, then Pope Francis is liturgically allowed to make this pastoral decision as bishop of rome. Roma locuta causa finita, really.
SM, arrested FOR WHAT?!
If that is true then Benedict would have lied when he said he is stepping down due to his health. I doubt if Pope Benedict would lie to us.
I think Rodrigo’s quote of Fr. Lombardi is the correct perspective on this. Couched in the context of Mr. Akin’s background regarding feet washing in the Holy Thursday liturgy, I can see why the Holy Father did as he did. Peace+
DDG
I don’t see what is so new about the Pope washing the feet of criminals: http://andreasmoser.wordpress.com/2013/03/29/papal-pedicure/
Nice try Jimmy
SM, the Vatican did not “remove” Benedict nor did they “appoint” Francis. If Benedict were removed against his will, then we don’t have Pope Francis..we have anti-pope Francis. I think this is clearly not the case.
Jesus Christ caused the same scandal when he spoke to the woman at the well, and allowed women to anoint him. All you complainers are starting to sound like the pharisees, more worried about the “letter of the law” than about charity itself. Seems here like the evil one has found a crack to divide and conquer the church.
@Dominic I’m glad that a presbyterian is interested in learning more about our holy Catholic faith. In charity, I would like to clarify that there is no discrimination of women in the Catholic Church, but simply a recognition that our Lord Jesus, as is witnessed by the New Testament, called only men, and not women, to the ordained ministry, and that the Apostles “did the same when they chose fellow workers who would succeed them in their ministry” (1 Tim. 3:1ff; 2 Tim. 1:6; Tit. 1:5). There are sound arguments supporting the fact that Christ’s way of acting was not determined by cultural motives, as there are also sufficient grounds to state that Tradition has interpreted the choice made by the Lord as binding for the Church of all times. Women in the Catholic Church are called to be spiritual leaders and great women of God following th example of St. Teresa of Avila, St. Catherine of Siena, etc. In 1994, Pope John Paul II issued an Apostolic Letter, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, in which he infallibly declared once and for all that “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.” Please, let us once and for but behind us this very divisive issue and humply recognize that women’s ordination is an impossibility that will not happen. It is not a “glass ceiling” or the Church’s attempt to hold back women. Instead, it is an infallible recognition that men and women have different roles and that Christ instituted a male priesthood. God Bless !
Frankly, how does it matter whose feet are being washed? And why not the washing of the feet of women? Christ did more for women’s liberation than anyone in history and presented women with a new dignity the Jews were not accustommed to. Just another reason for some modern day Pharisees to get upset over.
.
The idea that Jesus washed only the feet of the apostles as an ordination or prelude to priesthood is ridiculous. The only prelude in the washing of the feet is that He washed us all with His most precious blood on the cross.
Do you suppose the pope chose whose feet he’d wash, or did he just have his people tell the chaplain at the prison to gather up 12 inmates?
What an interesting discussion. I came here for more information after - as Canadian Presbyterian! - being deeply impressed by this unprecedented and inclusive gesture of the new Pope. I have long been struck by the repeated instances of our Lord going out of his way to bring news first to women - to include women - to forgive women - which we encounter in the Bible. It seemed to me that the washing of a woman’s feet was a sincere and CAREFULLY thought-out reflection by Pope Francis of the openness Jesus always showed to Samaritans, criminals, and commandment-breakers, whether men or women. Thursday’s gesture drew me emotionally closer to the Catholic family - after weeks of becoming more and more uncomfortable with the huge hordes of men who seemed to be in charge of absolutely everything to do with the recent resignation and election. This one simple act restores my confidence that your great church can respect women, at least in some ways, if not yet in any leadership roles. Good discussion, thanks for the explanation!
If someone attempts to assassinate this pope, will it be a conservative Muslim or a conservative Catholic?
This is so sad to see. I hope Pope Francis will make a statement to try to console those who are scandalized, although it probably will only scandalize them more.
Jesus only gave the Eucharist to his twelve Apostles: does that mean that only men can receive the Eucharist? On what authority did the early disciples open up the Eucharist to women, none of whom were present at the first meal?
Our Mass should perhaps consist of us unordained disciples watching the heirs of the Apostles receive the Eucharist.
I’m a traditionalist but I say we got bigger fish (battles) to fry ( catechize). Let’s start with the need for ad orientum and the need to get rid off all altar girls ( for the sake of priestly vocations). Thankfully I got the best bishop in the USA- Bishop Edward Slattery, Tulsa Oklahoma Diocese. And don’t say traditional liturgical reverence is opposed to charity & mercy… Look at how excellent Bishop Slattery united both with the Tulsa Catholic Charities (YouTube it on EWTN).... He’s done way more than all liberal US bishops combined for the faith & charity.
This gesture has absolutely nothing to do with being a liberal (modernist). Speaking to Associated Press, Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi explained that “in a “grand solemn celebration” of the rite, it would make sense to only involve men because during the Last Supper, Christ washed the feet of the 12 apostles, all of whom were male. But in the case of Casal del Marmo “the rite was for a small, unique community made up also of women. It was a unique situation in which excluding the girls would have been inopportune in light of the simple aim of communicating a message of love to all in a group that certainly didn’t include refined experts in liturgical rules.” As Rodrigo said earlier, “this exception to the rule was done for pastoral reasons in a very unique situation that merited the inclusion of the two teenage girls.” In an ordinary Holy Thursday Mass it is still required for only men to get their feet washed for the reason given above by Father Lombardi and to comply with the established Liturgical rubrics. God Bless our Holy Father, a faithful conservative Roman Pontiff with a heart of gold. To the modernist “catholics” that seem to be prematurely celebrating a return to the craziness of the spirit of Vatican II, let me assure you that there will never be validly ordained women priests, since this infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium already belongs to the deposit of faith forever and ever. This teaching of having an all-male priesthood is irrevocable and will never change. May the peace of Christ be with you !
Todd, thank you for the thoughtful reminder.
I found this blog post from a canon lawyer earlier today:
http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/popes-like-dads-dont-have-a-choice-in-the-matter/
I found his homepage here if you want to write to him:
http://canonlaw.info/
Pete, and Mark, thanks for those comments.
I think we can appreciate the upheaval of those who find their Catholic worldview shaken by this act of washing female and Muslim feet. Every believer experiences this, and we look to times when we face the death of a loved one, or a shattering revelation, or a life-changing event. How do we get through it? We pray. How do we deal with uncertainty? We discern.
Many of our sister and brother Catholics are shaken. What can we do? Why not emulate the Master? We are here to serve. To listen. And if you say something a bit half-cocked and slightly crazy, we won’t hold it against you. We’ll wait for you to calm down. Let’s hope this event isn’t a cause for more divisions in the Body.
Pete, way to go!
Anne, the Gospels are not a historical record but a testimony about our Lord. Where, precisely, does it say that the Blessed Mother was NOT present. For that matter, who served the meal? Who cooked? Was it a restaurant or the home of some of Jesus’ disciples, the ones who were not the twelve? The Gospels are silent here. We are dangerously fooling with the Word of God by inserting things that are not said. I tremble that we are recasting everything, telling what “happened” s though we were there.
Well what a bunch shite this whole article is.—JESUS WASHED FEET—Film and anal dissection to follow. Jesus washed the feet of 12 Jews, are we to be offended because the Pope, didn’t wash any Jewish feet on Thursday??
All the people who are complaining, get a grip on your beads. I usually see the same people commentating who are all outraged today, as the same people who usually think we (your fellow Heathens) don’t follow the Pope, closely enough. If the Pope, loosens rules on Earth, Heaven will do the same. That old ex cathedra rule, doesn’t usually bite the religiously nutty on the butt often enough. Maybe you had your hard swing to the right heyday, with the last two Popes, but now the momentum of the Papal swing is going back to Vatican II. And Heaven will follow.
Why didn’t Jesus then invite His Mother in to the Last Supper and have her feet washed, she who was the purest of all Creatures ? Unfortunately this whole event (feet washing) takes away from the Priesthood and the Holy Eucharist on the very night that both were initiated. And not only that it is also causing much confusion and in fighting amongst Catholics. And we all know or at least should who likes to cause division and who likes to tear down the Priesthood and the Holy Eucharist. If we can’t see what is going on here, we need to pray and open our eyes.
How satan must be delighted by watching us tear each other to shreds in combox battle.
Francis represents the One holy CCatholic Church many of us were raised in, and long to return to.
Mmany posters here represent the Private Political Club mmany Catholics have tried to change our Church into
Real Catholics didn’t protest,,, they didn’t go on TV,,,,,they didn’t march in parades or call themselves victims or persecuted,,,,,,,They prayed for the persecuted, sick and Homeless the private Club forgot all about,
They Simply PRAYED God gave us Pope Francis.
This is not a big deal. It has nothing to do with female ordinations. The feet washing ceremony (since its long history all the way back to 1955) has always been meant to symbolize Christ’s calling for all his disciples to be servants. Having one’s feet washed is not a uniquely priestly function. It also has nothing to do with washing the feet of some “holy people”. As for those who are incensed about him washing criminal feet, maybe you should consider the potential of the act to be a call to redemption. And maybe you should also consider that some of these inmates may be closer to salvation than you or I. At least they have the blessing of temporal punishment for their sins, a punishment which could be turned to penance with conversion of heart. Is visiting the imprisoned not one of the corporal works of mercy? Altar girls is a big deal. “Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers” especially of the female variety is a big deal. This isn’t. Let’s try to keep things in perspective.
The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. There is a profound need among us for a better integration of the proper expression of the liturgy and the heart of Christ in the believer- we don’t have that yet, even with the best forms of the EF in practice. And this is made again that much clearer here in this forum when so many voices cry for a type of deification of the Liturgy- it is the second side of the coin to the Protestant cry for the deification of their canon of Sacred Scripture.
There is another option we have yet to capture in heart or in practice, although both of the last two popes have certainly tried heroically. The problem is we the people, the people of God, devout Catholics who continue to choose our understanding and preference for our own comfort zone in our perception, rather than really coming to seek, know, understand and live the heart and mind of Christ in truth, love and above all mercy. This pope is going to push the envelope on those things in an effort to better integrate us as a the ones who have gained the right to become the children of God per the first chapter of John’s gospel—- and for the record Jesus, and St. Francis, St. Catherine of Siena, they all did the same thing.
I had to stop reading these comments because I got tired of being told how unloving and pharisaical I am for caring about the traditions of the Church and believing that the rubrics are given for a reason. One commentator even referred to those who believe in following the rubrics as “wolves” devouring those who participate in illicit practices. I spent decades in a diocese with a Bishop who talked the same way. Get rid of all the symbols of our faith and replace them with what he liked and justify it by calling it “Love.” Of course, that love was not extended to me as someone who loves the Church, who didn’t support womyn priests and who was so fanatical that I knelt at the consecration. He didn’t live in the housing provided either. He also didn’t wear the beautiful vestments which were available or use gold vessels. He was being sensitive to the “poor.” I’m not saying Pope Francis is another Ken Untner. Just that I’ve heard all this before. Bishop Untner was my bishop and Pope Francis is my Pope. I am seriously trying to understand but it is very difficult.
Rodrigo, excellent comment.
“I disagree. Jesus washed the feet of 12 men.”
How can you possibly disagree? All Jimmy did was quote canon law.
Muslims demand that the Church respect Islam, while Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI was always precise about respecting instead the followers of Islam. Freedom of religion is innate to human persons, and does not imply equivalency of their religions. Better for the pope to kiss the feet of a follower of Islam than to kiss the Qur’an, as we witnessed two decades back.
Could we think of the Pope washing a Muslim girl’s feet like Christ washing Judas’s feet. Although the rest were prisoners to they did crimes….not very holy if it was a civil crime that’s also a sin.
@TotusTuus, you wrote: “Why all of this epmhasis on the poor and helping all of humanity and reaching out to all people of regardless of religious persuasion?”
Seriously? Have you ever bothered to read the gospels?
In regards to Pope Francis washing women’s feet on Holy Thursday, Father Federico Lombardi, spokesman for the Holy See told the Associated Press that in «great solemn celebration» it would be logical to wash the feet of only men, because it commemorates the last supper of Jesus with his Apostles, «in a small and unique community, composed also by women», as in the Casal of Marmo juvenile detention center, it would have been «inappropriate» exclude women, «in the light of the simple aim of communicating a message of love to everyone in a group that did not include refined experts of liturgical regulations». In other words, this exception to the rule was done for pastoral reasons in a very unique situation that merited the inclusion of the two teenage girls. God Bless !
For the experts opining here regarding canon law and rubrics, is there an anathema regarding women having their feet washed? The church has used this verbiage to prohibit a thing and still does. Not aware that there is wording that forbids it.
On Father Z’s blog I saw a few comments in the vein of “ew, gross, my sensitive manly eyes cannot endure seeing middle-aged and elderly woman feet,” as well as others that complained of attractive young women having their feet washed being an occasion of sin (you do realize that being arroused by the sight of feet is messed up, no?). I have often rolled my eyes when feminists go on and on about the male gaze, but there it is! I love the Extraordinary Form, I love Latin and polyphony and tradition, but I do not love the crass attitudes I’ve seen in some quarters of the web. And I was touched by the Pope’s actions because he did not treat those girls like objects that were there to please or disgust his eyes - he treated them like people. I can only hope that some of these combox warriors will figure that out eventually.
Lets all take a deep breath and calm down. Pope Francis needs time to settle down in office. There is no need to rush to judgment. Character - good or bad - can be hidden for a while. But as an old saying of my grandmother goes character (or policy) is like smoke sooner or later it will manifestly come forth.
Lets pray for the Church and the Pope; it is our duty.
“As much as I understand those who desire the 12 men”. Thats the RULES!!!!. You don’t break them, even if your the Pope!!!. Geez do I really need to go to confession, MAYBE I WILL DO AS I FEEL LIKE!!!.
Did the Holy Ghost choose the Pope or the Ghost of Vatican 2 chose the Pope???. good old VP Biden just received communion for a second time at Dolans Cathedral. I guess priests let him break the rules to!!!
Yep time to move to the Byzantine church!!. Where they know tradition and how to keep it! Even their Hierarchy.
Perhaps, Jimmy, you should start writing for the other NcR.
As much as I understand those who desire the 12 men - who have taken holy orders - to be the ones who have their feet washed by the Pope, I’m also not surprised that Pope Francis did this, and I totally understand it - not as a statement against the male priesthood - but rather as a statement for the service and charity that we, as Christians, should have towards all - regardless of who they might be.
I’m for Tradition, but I also know that our treasure is to be in Him, and in loving Him.. loving others.
Trust God, Trust Jesus, Trust the Holy Spirit, stay close to Mary, live the faithful life - that is enough to focus on - worrying about this to the Nth degree is sad if we miss Jesus in all of this.
In light of what you write, how am I supposed to understand our parishes practice of having people other than the priest doing the feet washing? Even when it is pointed out that the Diocese doesn’t approve the practice continues.
Oswald,
Which begs the question?
Then why not just change the rubrics instead of ignoring them?
Since 1987, the website of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has favored allowing women to participate in the rite of foot washing on Holy Thursday. See link: http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/liturgical-resources/triduum/holy-thursday-mandatum.cfm#
This fact raises the issue of whether and how custom can abrogate a liturgical law.
One source reports that in 2004 the Archbishop of Boston was given permission by Rome to include women for pastoral reasons. Well, if the Archbishop of Boston can do it, why can’t the Bishop of Rome? This entire discussion is trending toward being much ado about nothing.
You mean the same pharisees of which Christ remarked,“Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example.”
Let’s leave the name-calling out of this.
We can have both. We can follow the rubrics of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass AND this teaching act of charity by the Pope. All it requires is for him to change the rules or get a bit more creative in how he might make the same lesson outside of Mass. We can have both love and the law.
dan h spoken like a true liberal. If you ignore disibedience at any level you get chaos. What family functions properly where there arevrules and the father breaks them when it suits himself? When that happens the children lose respect for their father, and that is what is happening here. Soon many will not respect his authority at all.
yikes.
Quite a lot of analysis going on here. A lot of quibbling over this law or that precept.
How about accepting the act for what it was: a beautiful symbol of service and humility. This is the example we should take from this.
Anything more complex than that really reminds me of the hemming and hawing of the pharisees of Christ’s own time.
Leaving the justification for what Pope Francis did to those who are more learned in theology and liturgy than I am, my only fear is that if the Pope starts “winging it,” we will be headed back liturgically to the days when the Mass was subject to ad hoc revision by the “Presider.” Pope Benedict, by example, served as a wonderful model for other priests in the devout and dignified celebration of the Mass. I understand the argument that the Pope is supreme legislator etc., but most Catholics, including priests and bishops, will only use this as a justification for inserting their own pecadillos into the liturgy.
My mother in law always said, of these liturgical innovations, that they would never drive her out of the Church. The only positive thing I can say about this kind of thing is that it often forces me to examine my conscience after Mass to see if I have been uncharitable by this stuff.
Pray for the Pope. Pray for the Church. Pray for each other.
Francis is leading the Church by disobedience. I agree where one poster said he threw good faithful Catholic priests under the bus that he was riding on. I agree with Fr Z who said rather than this being all about humility, it is all about him, Francis. I thought the crowds looked a lot thinner at St Peter’s than is normal at Easter. I think it’s time he was reigned in by some of the Cardinals as the Church is about to get a lot smaller.
Thank your for this very helpful article. I especially like point # 6. I too have had to make a journey away from understanding the action in terms of the apostles, to understanding it in terms of the disciples, more generally.
cathgal said: Christ does not demand legalism, He demands love - in action. So how about we get busy finding some unwashed feet in our own zipcodes? The debates over rules can wait, seeing as how they were made for us and not the other way around.
—————————-
Why the dichotomy? Can’t we follow the rules AND still find ways to encourage people to serve their fellow man? How much more effective the symbolism would have been had the Pope washed the feet of his priests in the prison DURING Mass and then AFTER MASS those priests, along with the Pope, went and washed the feet of all of the prisoners. The outstanding message of charity remains and the outstanding message of following the rubrics of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass remain intact. Everybody wins and we don’t pit charity against the rubrics. In fact, we have them complement each other.
Just takes a bit of creative thought.
No. Pope can’t just change the liturgy according to his whims.
He can officially legislate what he wants, but in a given moment, even he is subject to the rubrics and the present law.
SC 22.3. and GIRM 24. tells just that.
One or two commenters above have asked why including women in the foot-washing is a “big deal.”
It is proper to maintain an awareness that men are men and women and women, and that the distinction between the two means something. It is also proper to maintain an awareness that close contact between a male and a female may result in something beyond what is desirable and intended when the action was first undertaken, that temptations against modesty and purity may arise either in the participants or observers that need not have arisen had the rubrics been faithfully observed. (If a cleric renders first-aid to an injured woman, and observers are scandalized, nevertheless the rendering of first-aid was imperative and therefore need not be further justified, but this foot-washing of women is not only against the rubrics but also completely unnecessary, and therefore any scandal or temptation that may result makes this action all that much the more deplorable.)
You tithe mint, cumin and dill but neglect the weightier matters of the law… Pope Francis is turning our gaze to the heart of the gospel. To be a good Catholic means more than following the rules (small r). See Matthew 25 for further explanation.
Understood as service to others, NO problem! -And that may be said for any strict Traditionalist (of which I am not, I’m simply Catholic.)
Understood as a powerful visual Icon of The Last Supper and Ordinations, big problem! Only men may be ordained.
I’m going to have to adjust my thinking to the just the former, Peter has Spoken! Staying stuck in the mud, or gloating (one wonders the what the motive is here) ...... would be un Christian (un Catholic).
Understood as service to others, NO problem! -And that may be said for any strict Traditionalist (of which I am not, I’m simply Catholic.)
Understood as a powerful visual Icon of The Last Supper and Ordinations, big problem! Only men can be ordained.
I’m going to have to adjust my thinking to the former, Peter has Spoken! Staying stuck in the mud, or gloating, would be un Christian (un Catholic).
Honestly, this is one of those issues I just have to roll my eyes at. Of all the things catholics get at each other’s throats about this might be one of the silliest. Washing the feet of female prisoners “a wicked gesture against Our Lord and Saviour Himself”?! Really?! I just can’t picture Jesus freaking out about this topic, one way or the other.
Look, I *like* tradition, and I love the Church, and I see nothing wrong with washing the feet of women. Sabbath is for man, not man for the sabbath. When crazy legalism goes against love, love is what we should listen to. Let’s not be pharisees, people. Let’s not spew mindless hate in the name of God. I have no problem with parishes that choose to wash only the feet of priests - that’s fine, you can interpret it like that, and as a woman I’m not offended. But if you’re going to wash the feet of laypersons, I absolutely cannot see why women can’t be included.
And Paul Grala, where do you get that idea from? Is there some data that links altar girls to the diminishing of young people’s faith? Really? Or is it personal experience? If the latter, then I have to say that I, on the other hand, have seen no evidence of it. The young catholics I see are enthusiastic and orthodox. Personally, again, I don’t really care either way. I might slightly prefer male-only altar servers, but I see no reason to storm out of a church if there’s a girl helping out.
Besides deterring from a long-lasting and deep theological understanding of the washing of the feet of the 12 apostles, we have not survived altar girls as boys now tend to shy away from being altar servers and the faith of our young people is diminishing.
anna s, precisely the point. We worship God, not Tradition. The moment keeping rules become more important than taking the Gospel to the needy, we can be SURE we have lost our way.
That said, our Lord ruffled lots of feathers in much the same way. Let us pray for Pope Francis.
I’ve read some of the comments here…not all, couldn’t stomach them to be honest. The sheer disgust inside these commets is astounding and saddening. I don’t know what the Catholic church has become but it’s absolutely sad when a tradition is held in more reverence than what’s really important - the idea that Jesus came and died for our sins, rose from dead, loves us and wants a relationship with us.
The idea that men were the ones having their feet washed for centuries is because it was the ‘proper’ thing to do according to the times. This ‘tradition’ should NEVER be more than important than the core parts of faith
As for all those oh-so-inclusive-and-all-knowing progressives critizing orthodox, traditional Catholics, here’s a nugget of wisdom from GKC himself: “Tradition means giving a vote to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead.” All of the sudden you progressives don’t like democracy anymore. hehe
I think the pope would have changed the canon about feet washing before Mass at the prison; except he foresaw how ridiculous some people would look freaking out about it, and he realized he’d make a bigger point not changing it.
Our Holy Father is the Good Shepherd. Good Shepherds see the big picture. Good Shepherds know the big picture is love. I’ve seen that photo going around of the last three popes about our faith and the tag under Francis says “now go do it.” It’s time we take that seriously. Our Holy Father isn’t messing around. He’s not here to get into obscure canonical debates about whether or not he should wash and kiss the feet of a young woman in his flock. Ha! He’s here to serve and to love with humility, and he wants you to join him. Are you in?
John 13:15: “I have given a model for you to follow, so that as I have done for you, you should also do.” This is addressed to “disciples” (Jn 13:5) not apostles. Not clergy. But disciples. If a Catholic considers herself or himself a disciple, then we are urged to follow this model. It seems that Pope Francis, by example, is realigning “viri selecti” with the values of the Lord. Good for him. And good for all of us.
Ryan, stop being ridiculous. Of course God loves all sinners (you didn’t tell us nothin’ new there), hence why He sent His only Begotten Son for us. But He didn’t send us Jesus Christ so that Jesus would condone sin and say, “It’s all okay. You’re okay. Lets clap our hands now.” Heck no! It was to Forgives us, reconcile us with the Father, and call us to repent and “SIN NO MORE” (which means receive the Holy Spirit so that you may have the strength coming from God to reject and stay the heck away from ALL sin). ALL sin (whether you aknowledge a particular sin or not) is disgusting in the eyes of God, but the devil is happy when we act permissive.
Just read these letters from imprisoned youth already touched by Pope Francis’ actions: http://en.radiovaticana.va/articolo.asp?c=677778. By their fruit you shall know them?
Christ does not demand legalism, He demands love - in action. So how about we get busy finding some unwashed feet in our own zipcodes? The debates over rules can wait, seeing as how they were made for us and not the other way around.
@ Ryan: Thanks be to God an EX-Catholic is telling the Church what to do.
Pathetic. Keep your heretical opinions to yourself.
Next year, I plan on washing the feet of lesbians making out. That way, I know the world will celebrate me.
I just hope Pope Francis will continue (or to at least tolerate) the Tridentine Mass promotion done by Pope Emeritus Benedict xvi.
I personally thought it was more remarkable that he held the entire Holy Thursday Mass in a youth prison—the fact that 2 girls/women had their feet washed seems to be not that important.
I’m with Barb above—our old Parish—*everyone* who wanted to had their feet washed. Everyone had the chance to wash feet. I am very traditional and faithful to the Magisterium—but I have to say, that it really hit me hard to see my own little 5 year old son’s feet washed. It really revealed so much more about the mystery of Charity and Christ’s love for us all.
And I agree with Barb about Maria Divine Mercy—this is a private revelation. We should follow Christ and the Church—not private revelation.
I don’t think that we have to make this bigger then it needs to be. Pope Francis was ministering to those youth in that prison. If he excluded the girls, what message would that send to them? Maybe it isn’t about us (O, humility!), Catholics, but rather it was about the imprisoned youth. Can we entertain the thought that it wasn’t even about us???
TotusTuus hit the nail on the head, and New Age is satanic.
The one point or perspective I did not see was the fact that it is explicitly clear in the Synoptic Gospels that Jesus was at table with the 12 Apostles/Disciples and based on how chapter 13 in John’s Gospel reads there is nothing to indicate that the Washing of the Feet was not the 12 Apostles/Disciples.
I’ve been watching 12 people of both sexes and various ages ( including children) get their feet washed on Holy Thursday for many years. All of this complaining sounds like the Pharisees of Jesus’ time. I can’t believe what I am reading here! So this Pope shows that disciples need to serve both sexes, all ages, and all people ( including non-Christians), and you think this is wrong?
Those following Maria Divine Mercy - Please be cautious. Can you not see that these messages are grooming you to go against the authority of the Church and prepping you for a schism? I have been keeping tabs on these messages and others that are planting these seeds of discontent with the authority of the Church. Open your eyes, and open your Bible, rather than these volumes.
The days of the “Good Ole boys exclusive club” is being threatened by this Pope. We are all equal in the eyes of God; men, women, gay, straight,whatever your ethnic, poor and rich. Women of all denominations have kept churches going that would have folded a long time ago.
I left the CC and happy to be part of the whole body of Christ. I left the CC disturbed as I saw sisters who have given their lives to serve others, only to be treated like a low class citizen from priests. We are called to serve others, not discriminated because you may be a woman. You traditionalists need to wake up. You swallow a camel but choke on a fly.
TerriC,
Traditionally, the ceremony was about priesthood and that is why it was limited to only men and part of the Holy Thursday liturgy since it too is about the priesthood. As Jimmy has pointed out, the lesson of service and charity can be expanded so one can obviously make the case to increase the scope of whose feet are being washed.
However, the rubrics still call for only males to be part of the ceremony. The Pope’s actions, as well meaning as they are, go against his own standing rubrics for how the liturgy should be celebrated. In effect, we have now pitted charity against following the rubrics of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. No only is a bad spot to be in philosophically and from a leadership perspective, it creates controversy to such an extent that the original message gets lost in the debate. Further, as someone has pointed out already, it undercuts the credibility and moral authority of priests out there who have been upholding the rubrics out of love for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
If the changed really needed to happen, then it should have been done right. Make the change to the rubrics and then follow the rubrics.
As it stands know, I think this will only serve to make what is an optional part of the Holy Thursday liturgy, one that is avoided by growing numbers of priests.
http://australiaincognita.blogspot.com/2013/03/pope-washes-feet-of-muslims-and-women.html
With all the things to worry about in our political sphere, it’s a little disconcerting to even contemplate that the pope might be pushing boundaries.Does papal infallibility extend to his washing of women’s feet? In addition my Protestant sister comes to me upset saying that she heard that the pope endorsed same-sex unions. This whole situation is stressful because if the pope is unorthodox, then where can we turn.
I am a cradle Catholic and have seen women as a part of the foot washing ceremony during Holy Thursday Mass at several parishes over at least the last 20 years. Apparently it is outside of the norm or the instructions for the Mass…but why is this such a huge deal to some of the commentators and the originator of the post? Tonight we had a young boy in a wheelchair, a disabled man, as well as able bodied men and women (members of the parish council) included in the foot washing ceremony. It does nothing to take away from the ceremony to have men and women of different ages involved. It is an expression of the service that the priest, being in the person of Christ, has to his parish family.
The Roman Church of the 2010s is looking more and more like the Episcopal Church of the 1970s.
“If the Church can survive altar girls, it can certainly survive a change in the discipline regarding who has their feet washed.”
True, but the discipline wasn’t changed, it was blatantly disregarded.
If he had announced a universal change first it would have been different.
Today was the first time I remember in our diocese that a pastor took a stand on this issue. He just wrote in the parish bulletin last Sunday regarding how it thought it important to follow the Church in Her liturgical documents in all matters, including this one. He is a new pastor at a parish where he will definitely take heat for this decision. Several hours before Holy Thursday Mass in our parish the “bishop of Rome” throws him and many other faithful pastors under the bus. How many times does this happen to those priests who take a stand with the Church? If you stand with the Church in these matters, dear pastors, be prepared for the cross. The Church will be nowhere to be found when you need them. Humility, my eye. This man has the arrogance of the revolutionary liberalism that destroyed the liturgy of the Mass and the Church in the wake of Vatican II. Pope Benedict was always speaking of gently bringing us back so as not to rupture us again. Liberals? No such scruples. Nice job College of Cardinals. God save the Church.
This Muslim girl was not forced into foot washing, I assume. She wanted her feet washed by the pope for reasons of her own. I seem to remember a gospel where Jesus had a discussion with a Samaritan woman even though Jewish men weren’t supposed to talk to Samaritan women. The Apostles thought it wasn’t fitting and spoke against it. The woman even had a problem with it, then willingly talked with him after initial uneasiness. In fact, every aspect of the Gospel included women and Gentiles except the choosing of the 12. Trying to say the pope should not wash a non-Catholic woman’s foot is like saying, “ignore Jesus, follow the Pharisees.” Also, St. Paul confronted Peter’s face when Peter wouldn’t eat with Gentiles. If Peter should eat with Gentiles shouldn’t the pope wash willing Muslim’s feet?
I hope the radical muslims don’t get wind of this, they don’t like women’s feet being seen in public let alone being washed and kissed. Did anyone think about the inter religious, international uproar this could cause?
Keep observing the “breaks” with tradition of this Pope, also listen closely to the words he is using in his homilies. All of this talk of “protecting the environment” should make people’s ears go up. How many times did Jesus mention this as a priority in his Gospel? Check out contemporary Spanish nun, Sr. Dolores Alexaindre, allegedly one of the pope’s favorite authors—her religious order, the same one founded by St. Madeleine Sophie de Barat, has clear connections to the New Age movement—especially in regards to eco-justice, cosmology, etc. etc. Remember, the New Age Movement wants to eradicate poverty from the earth, but didn’t Jesus say “you will always have the poor with you, but you will not always have Me?” Why should the new Pope want a church that is poor so badly? Why all of this epmhasis on the poor and helping all of humanity and reaching out to all people of regardless of religious persuasion? Can aethesists really build the bridge to peace along with believers as the new Pope has indicated in his first homily? Is there really no need to be a believer? Mary said to pray the Rosary everyday, make sacrifices and frequent the sacraments to attain peace. Can non-believers do these things? I should think not. Watch and listen to what this Pope is doing and saying before you judge.
At least with the Eastern Roman Church (Byzantine), there is liturgical continuity!.
Is the Roman Rite now just going to be a hodge podge of whatever we feel like. Like the LA Religious Education Congress and their so-called Roman liturgy with dancing deacons and women wearing night gowns in front of celibate clergy. Sorry I just had to get it out of my system!!!.
having spent several hours with the Lord in the Most Blessed Sacrament….and reading all these ‘comments’, it seems only right to go to the garden to ‘dominus flavit’.....
the very reason I stopped doing the foot washing years ago…..
cleanest feet in the parish & the wolves would devour the sheep whose feet were ‘washed’.
Cassandra, you are being deeply uncharitable. It is a serious matter to compare washing women’s feet to that of Pope Alexander VI’s adultery. That is simply going too far.
One Pope talks of the reform of the reform of the Roman rite and the gift of Summorum Pontificum. And the other disregards all aspect of protocol and traditions. In church we learn of the twelve apostles who were men that symbolize the foot washing of twelve men. In Rome the Pope, as well as an increasingly large amount of Roman clergy say otherwise. What is it!!!!?
Time to discover the East!!. Orthodox!
Getting sick of the liturgical rupture of the Roman Church and the confusing signals from the Hierarchy.
It strikes me a very interesting that Mr. Akin finds a way to explain the Pope’s change in a rite (optional or not) when the instruction specifically uses the word “vir” (male) to indicate who are to have their feet washed. The arguments he puts forth do not really explain how “vir” can be interpreted as anything other than males.
Perhaps the reason that the Pope did what he did was to give a clear signal that the Roman Catholic Church’s discrimination against women goes to extremes and needs to change.
Perhaps Pope Francis is, in a small way, opening up the discussion about women in the church which was so autocratically discouraged by his predecessors.
Those focusing so intently on the gender of the feet washed are arguing over the flesh, while Christ and Pope Francis are serving the spirit.
Allan, the Pedilavium rite was revived in the Roman Church fifty years ago, but it was celebrated for more than a thousand years in Rome only falling into disuse in the late medieval period, and during that time women were not participants. Moreover, the Roman Church is not the only Apostolic Church and the rite has been continuously used large areas of the Eastern Christian world. I find it odd that Pope Francis seems so intent on making the papacy reflect his personal tastes and ambitions. It would be better if he allowed himself to be a servant of the office he holds and of tradition, because then - and only then - would he truly be empowered to become a servant of the people of God. That is true humility.
Having read the four bloggers (3 linked) on this topic, I honestly have no doubt in my mind that were they Renaissance bloggers, they’d be defending Alexander VI with his mistress and bastard children (perhaps something about setting a pro-life example). I would certainly hope that readers here at NCR would think they are more Catholic than that pope.
No, Stu, follow the consequences for the salvation of souls here, and don’t cop out because he is the pope. This is not as trivial as black shoes and living quarters.
It is the liturgical law of the church. While the pope can disregard it, priests esp. (dubiously bishops can dispense), cannot disobey the law. To do so, is at least a sin of disobedience—probably venial depending on knowledge and intent.
It is indisputable this is an explicit example of Francis that others will be quick—even tonight—to duplicate. BUT for priests at least, it still remains a sin. Ergo, an intentional example leading others into sin.
The proper way would have been for Francis to issue a Motu Proprio changing the law first, THEN setting the example. At the very, very least give a verbal, explicit change of the rubrics in the homily.
What we have here is JPIII. “Reform” by liturgical abuse.
Jesus Christ is our perfect example of the way all things should be performed, not Pope Frances. The Pope was to wash the feet of the Cardinals, Bishops, and Priests. The Roman Catholic Church may have a Pope that we may not wish for.
Jimmy’s article is fair and I was glad to read it as he explained things as best he could regarding the rubrics of the liturgy as well as scripture.
Anyway, while watching the clip of the Holy Father and his washing of the feet, all I could think about was how this simple yet important and kind gesture might have a life changing impact on the young detainees there. I also knew the uproar of what would come but whatever…I stand with Papa Francis.
And guess what? His “action” today did make an impact thousand miles away! Praise be God in His angels and in His saints!
“Letters from prison”
http://en.radiovaticana.va/articolo.asp?c=677778
Please note also: It is not necessary for Catholics to think this is a good idea, let alone to think (as others have written) that it is “beautiful” or something we should emulate. I am not happy with him washing the feet of women, but I am much more concerned with him washing the feet of people who are not Catholics, not even schismatics, not even heretics, but, to use the correct technical term, infidels—unbelievers. Can this soften their hearts so that they will believe and accept the Gospel? Basically no. Of course we live in a world where someone shot a US president because he thought the president was having an affair with Jody Foster, so it’s impossible to rule out the odd reaction of any one person, but in general if you want people to respect your religion, you have to first show them that you respect it yourself. I never would have converted to the Catholic Church if I had not met serious Catholics first—the kind who would politely warn me that I should not attempt to receive Communion. Likewise, having experienced a seder hosted by a friend in a Reconstructionist synagogue, I can say I have more respect for the the religion of Jews who take their Judaism seriously enough not to invite me.
Cassandra,
Let’s not go to extremes. We can easily recognize that the Pope was teaching us a lesson about charity and service (which is a good lesson) while similarly coming to the conclusion that his method was not the best in terms of execution given other factors. That’d doesn’t make him evil or leading his priests into sin.
I have always placed the liturgical ceremonies of Holy Thursday as our commemoration of the institution of the priesthood and the institution of the Eucharist.
There is no mention of any women being present at the Last Supper - truly extraordinary as the Mother of God was most definitely in Jerusalem, she would next day be at the foot of the Cross.
Twelve men had their feet washed by Christ as these twelve would take the burden of Christ’s priesthood - thus when we wash the feet of females and those who do not share our faith, we lessen the focus on those who would be ordained. Today, we really need to concentrate the hearts and minds of those who are now ordained as priests and those who will be ordained or who are discerning a vocation to the priest - there is a journey now lasting 2,000 years that brings us to this time. Let’s stay the course!
That this liturgical innovation dates only to 1955 is neither here nor there - it is like saying that the Roman Missal in its current form was only approved for use in its new translation from Advent 2011.
while the Pope can “get away” with breaking canon law as the supreme legislator, he is setting an example, as you point out, for others to follow. However, unless Francis changes canon law—and there is no time before this evening to promulgate it, it will be a sin for others to do the same. Francis, as pope, is leading his priests to sin. Fortunately, under the circumstances, probably only venial.
But intentionally leading others into sin is about as evil as evil gets.
Alas, those who are “more Catholic than the Pope” have had their say (‘though I suspect they’re far from done with their comments). But, let me get this straight. “Cafeteria Catholics” are those who pick and choose what parts of the Church’s teaching to follow, and that is a “bad thiong”. Especially if they are US political liberals. But it is OK to attack and deny the authority of a man to whom they are pledged obedience? Hello? What makes you Super-Catholics any better than Nancy Pelosi (your favorite heretic)? It seems some of you have more concern for liturgy (and other practices of the Church) that are less than 200 years old. Look in a mirror, before you start speaking of a “wicked gesture”. (Frankly, my dear, I don’t think you would know a wicked gesture if one bit you.) We should be—Biblically—remembering just who “the least of these” really are.
What Stu,says makes sense.
While I understand that this is not a doctrinal issue - I am less than enthusiastic about the Holy Father’s decision to include women in the washing of the feet ceremony. I would NOT be opposed to the inclusion of women by means of abolishing the stipulation, as per the rubrics, of it only being men. The point is, however, that the Pope has not issued any decree changing this rule. He has merely set it aside. Those of us in parishes who try hard to do things according to the mind of the Church, (often to the criticism and ridicule of our brother priests and some of the lay faithful), will find it hard to encourage our brother priests to follow the rubrics of the liturgy - if the example of the Holy Father, unfortunately, seems to encourage them to improvise. If Pope Francis wanted to wash the feet of females then perhaps he should have publicly announced a change to that rubric - (he does have that power after all) - before carrying out that gesture.
I fear that this gesture will be used by others to push ideas and liturgical practice well beyond what his Holiness could forsee. Here in Ireland the national media’s 9 O’Clock News stated that Pope Francis washed the feet of two women inmates, a first for a Papal Mass and a new development given that washing the feet of women is banned in many Diocese throughout the world. Of course, as per usual, the Irish Media never get anything fully right about the Church, but it is interesting that this is the only thing they focused on. I’m pretty sure Pope Francis wasn’t thinking that this would be the point of focus - but it is.
My point is, I suppose, the next time a parishioner asks me why I only wash the feet of men on Holy Thursday - they will not accept my response that I am only being faithful to the Church’s liturgical laws. Rightly they will respond: But Father - the Pope has no problem with it.
Allan,
It was reintroduced in 1955, but the tradition itself goes back much further.
If the Pope wants to change it, then so be it. But just do it right. Change the rubrics and explain why they are being changed. Then follow the new rubrics. That’s both good leadership and the pastoral approach.
I anticipated this, after seeing footage of him doing the same thing in his home town. Whatever his intention, it will be seen by very many secular priests as a big fat red line through the rules of the GIRM. Now everything will be seen as up for grabs. He has also greatly hampered any efforts by those of us who are trying to bring back more faithful liturgical practices.
In our parish church on Holy Thursday there is a drama of the last supper acted out by adults with oral script while the priest separately goes about consecrating the Body and Blood of Christ up on the altar.
Thank God and Benedict XVI for the EF in the neighbouring diocese.
I’ve had my feet washed and kissed in this liturgy even though I am not Jewish or circumcised.
Jimmy,
Thank you for putting this event in perspective. However, one of your arguments seems both irrelevant to the point you are making, and dangerously erroneous. On further reflection would you still stand by the following?
“...this event is recorded only in John’s Gospel, and John does not describe Jesus as washing the feet of “the apostles.” Instead, John says that he washed the feet of “his disciples.” Disciples is a more generic term than apostles. Although they are sometimes used synonymously, Jesus had many more disciples than he did apostles.”
John uses the term “disciples” when referring to either Jesus’ followers in general or to the twelve apostles, but we know from the other evangelists that only the twelve apostles were present at the last supper; so your argument seems irrelevant. Surely you don’t intend to suggest there were other disciples present at the last supper? In addition to being contrary to the other Gospels, that would completely undercut Catholic teaching about the priesthood, the Eucharist, apostolic succession, etc., given that it is essential that both the institution of the Eucharist and the last supper discourse were directed only to the twelve.
Walt (and others with similar posts), don’t be an idiot. This started in 1955. It’s barely 50 years, so don’t go whining about liturgical tradition. And as Jimmy pointed out, it’s an entirely optional thing, so it could be abandoned altogether. Which I suspect Walt and the others would prefer, rather than allowing it to be “soiled” by the presence of women. Come on, there’s enough real liturgical nonsense going on without making a big stink over things that are not really an issue.
And as for the crackpot at the top posting about “Maria Divine Mercy”, well if that’s what you consider a “wicked gesture against our Lord”, you truly are far gone. Enjoy the new religion MDM invented for you.
M. Akin,
You argue above that the use in John’s Gospel of “disciples,” rather than “apostles,” lends ambiguity to the link, since the terms are not always interchangeable (though they can be). However, does not the fact that this took place at the Last Supper strongly imply that only the Twelve were present to have their feet washed?
Sadly it look like the Roman Church’s liturgical tradition is going to continue to unravel.
“The washing of the feet of chosen men which, according to tradition, is performed on this day, represents the service and charity of Christ, who came ‘not to be served, but to serve’ (Matt XX: 28)...this tradition should be maintained, and its proper significance explained.”
-CDWDS document, “Paschales Solemnitatis”, 1988
I was so dismayed when I heard the news of what Pope Francis did today in washing the feet of two female inmates. While I understand the charity that I’m sure he was trying to show, the next logical progression would be confusion amongst the faithful and then division. It is more than evident, here in the United States, that the Church is divided between American Catholics and Roman Catholics. I can’t tell you how many Catholic women I’ve come across who have argued that women should have a more prominent role and be more recognized in the Church, including having feet washed on Holy Thursday, and ordination.
It is my understanding that Holy Thursday is a commemoration of when Jesus gave us the Holy Eucharist and the priesthood. His 12 male disciples were present at this Last Supper. By bringing women into this celebration (even though the foot washing is optional), the importance of Church teaching on male celibate priesthood and the institution of the Holy Eucharist is negated. A door for continued controversy is opened.
Our Holy Father needs prayer.
Good article, Jimmy. This is very needed, so that the unity of the Church is preserved.
Yikes, it looks like, from the above post, that Maria Divine Mercy is now at the point of causing schism. So sad, as the Holy Father has not changed anything doctrinal. Are people really going to claim that the Pope has no authority to do this? Some reading of the Lord’s words to the Pharisees would seem to be in order.
Entirely spurious reasoning. The Pope, as Supreme Legislator can, indeed, change Ecclesiastical law like our legislative bodies can.
But, to ignore the law entirely as he did is an act of the worst sort of monarchism and, indeed, smacks of the clericalism so many people abhor. It’s not Pope Francis’ Mass, it’s the Church’s Mass.
Leave it to the Jesuits to send us a Pope who is unfaithful to himself (in his office).
(Yes, yes, fine: the Pope judges all and is judged by none, fine, but it remains a duty to speak the truth.)
You’re right. This a DANGEROUS precedent! Treating women like human beings—like part of the church. You know what dangerous sorts of events this might lead to? Maybe it might lead to women who have long felt abandoned and ignored by a church that doesn’t offer them opportunities and a voice coming back to that very church! What a dangerous practice! Opening up the church and welcoming people. Can’t have that. Wouldn’t be prudent. Much better to have a bunch of stodgy old guys sitting around and judging others.
Mr. Akin,
Your quote: “It’s not traditional, but it’s humble and evangelistic.” is in error.
To break traditions and to refabricate them according to one’s own ideas, is quite egocentric and prideful. ... it is a false showboat form of humility.
A truly humble man guards tradition, preserving it intact and passing it on unmodified to the next generation.
Joseph, the most important liturgical rubric to come from Christ’s mouth is “Do this in memory of me.” You might also look up the word ‘liturgical’ as neither of your important “liturgical rubrics” have anything to do with the Divine Liturgy. Pax tecum.
@David B. - I don’t totally disagree. The point I was making was the “over the top nature” of the need for an article of this type. One does not need to be a liturgist to understand the deep meaning of what Pope Francis actually did. You hit the nail on the head when you stated, “The practice is not dogma or doctrine” a point I was making as well. It is during this Easter season we ought to be examining self rather than conducting an inquisition of this holy man.
@Eric,
I think the article is helpful in instructing people willing to listen.
@Fidelis Agbaps,
Did you read the article? Then you would know that the number is not specified. The practice is not dogma or doctrine; it can be changed by the pope. Please refrain from the spreading of MDM’s falsehoods.
In my opinion, the most important liturgical rubrics come from Christ’s own mouth: “A new commandment I give you…” and “The Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath”. The latter precept in particular seems to me to preclude any undue attention to what are, after all, mere human precepts.
While you argue over the letter of the liturgical rule in this case - our Holy Father will set the supreme example of how we should act.
On what two commandments hang all the law and the prophets? Love God and Neighbor.
Arguing over the gender of those participating in a foot washing ceremony as if it is some kinds of doctrinal violation is really interesting.
I can’t believe this action by Pope Francis generated an entire article. How about just encouraging Catholics to follow in the footsteps of this Holy Father?
I disagree. Jesus washed the feet of 12 men. I figured excuses were going to be made for our Pope. Hope there aren’t more changes against tradition.
Dear Jimmy Akin:
There is no other way to explain what the current occupant of the Chair of St. Peter did today other than to call it what it is: “A wicked gesture against Our Lord and Saviour Himself.” In fact, Jesus Himself said this would happen on March 14, 2013 through Maria Divine Mercy. Read at the link below.
http://www.thewarningsecondcoming.com/this-wicked-gesture-during-holy-week-will-be-seen-by-those-who-keep-their-eyes-open/
I respectfully disagree with you, Mr. Jimmy Akin. I wish people would open their eyes to the prophecies of MDM and pray about them instead of ignoring them. A Pope is supposed to set an example. Disregarding your own Liturgical Rules that calls for 12 men and adding 2 women does not sound good. He should have changed the rules first if he didn’t like them instead of disregarding them altogether as if the rules do not exist. Bad, bad, precedent. All these parsing of what “men” mean is irrelevant to those of us who have been skeptically watching.
Join the Discussion
We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words. By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines. Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words. Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.
Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.