L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
There ya go.Hmm, now that we have returned to non inclusive language, I would assume “men” meant all of “Man” or homo sapiens, which includes women last time I asked.
There ya go.Hmm, now that we have returned to non inclusive language, I would assume “men” meant all of “Man” or homo sapiens, which includes women last time I asked.
I get that. I’m talking about how others will see it.Washing their feet was a service to them. It doesn’t imply anything about their possible services to the Church (obviously, in the case of the Muslims).
You gotta wonder. Some day there will be a Pope that helps re-unite Christians. What if that Pope is now reigning?![]()
Seems to imply that they were inviting themselves, or else there would have been nothing to “refuse” - you can’t say no to an unasked question.The person specifically stated that the pastor “refused to include women”, which is an active verb. That is all the information we have.
Not. Invited just means not invited. If you don’t assume you’re going, you won’t be “refused.”Not invited = “barred” but also “not barred”. Do you see what I mean?
Got ya. And definitely a possible problem. But our Lord didn’t much care what “others” might think of His having a former prostitute in His rank of followers, though. Or that He hung out with “sinners”. Or lepers.I get that. I’m talking about how others will see it.
Oh sure. I’m not saying the Pope shouldn’t do this because of what they will think…jsut that this is what they will think.Got ya. And definitely a possible problem. But our Lord didn’t much care what “others” might think of His having a former prostitute in His rank of followers, though. Or that He hung out with “sinners”. Or lepers.
Look at it this way. The Pope obviously did this to send a message (and a good one, IMHO). Not his fault if it is misinterpreted. The Real Presence is preached, and misunderstood, daily. The definition of marriage is preached, and misunderstood, daily.
In all these cases, the fault lies with some listeners, not with the messenger.![]()
Thank you for your straightforward and simple synopsis!um, no, wait.
There was no ERROR and there was no BARRING.
There was an interpretation of a DISCIPLINE which apparently at least Pope Francis personally believes has ‘evolved’ into a different understanding.
Those who held to the earlier understanding were not ‘wrong’ in doing so. Pope Francis is not making a ‘change’ whereby something was ‘wrong’ before and now is ‘right’.
AGAIN!! WELL SAID!!Bless this Pope indeed, but it’s really kind of a verbal SLAP at our previous Popes you’ve made, don’t you think?
Think about it. You’re saying that one short year ago, Pope Benedict was washing men’s feet and Jesus was saying, “HE STILL DOESN’T GET IT”. . .
All the previous Popes were not WRONG washing the feet of men only, and Pope Francis is not somehow the ONLY GUY to 'get it right".
But, with all due respect to you my friend, who gives a fig what they think?Oh sure. I’m not saying the Pope shouldn’t do this because of what they will think…jsut that this is what they will think.
Or, that is exactly why His Holiness chose to do this.What I read was that the Pope is scheduled to was feet of inmates at a juvenile detention center. If that is so, given the climate of scandal in the church, it seems a very obtuse move.