Pope Francis to wash feet of prisoners in pre-Easter Mass

[JustaServant]

The non-Catholics/Christians sitting in for the foot washing.

This makes no logical sense at all.

 

[Brendan_64]

He came to call them to the Truth - membership in His Mystical Body, which is the Roman Catholic Church.

This is not correct. The Body of Christ includes all those who are baptised. The Mystical Body of Christ includes all Christians.

" For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ" Galatians 3:27

Any validly baptised person is a member of the Mystical Body of Christ. We say the Nicene Creed to declare our belief in one Baptism. All Christian, not just Catholics are members of the Body of Christ.

 

[JustaServant]

This is not correct. The Body of Christ includes all those who are baptised. The Mystical Body of Christ includes all Christians.

" For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ" Galatians 3:27

Any validly baptised person is a member of the Mystical Body of Christ. We say the Nicene Creed to declare our belief in one Baptism. All Christian, not just Catholics are members of the Body of Christ.

Good point.
And Baptism is not equal with the washing of feet.

 

[mgsk]

This is not correct. The Body of Christ includes all those who are baptised. The Mystical Body of Christ includes all Christians.

" For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ" Galatians 3:27

Any validly baptised person is a member of the Mystical Body of Christ. We say the Nicene Creed to declare our belief in one Baptism. All Christian, not just Catholics are members of the Body of Christ.

My understanding is still correct. The Catholic Church has jurisdiction over all the baptised by virtue of their baptism. They certainly are members of the Mystical Body, but only until they separate themselves by giving assent to heretical or schismatic beliefs.

 

[mgsk]

So…only Catholics are allowed to have thier feet washed?

Yes. Or at least only should be allowed.

Christ was to only serve His own?
You sound like a Calvinist.

What on earth are you talking about? And please don’t accuse me of subscribing to heretical beliefs. It is unbelievably insulting, especially given that you seem to have a penchant for misinterpreting even the most clearly written posts.

 

[JustaServant]

My understanding is still correct. The Catholic Church has jurisdiction over all the baptised by virtue of their baptism. They certainly are members of the Mystical Body, but only until they separate themselves by giving assent to heretical or schismatic beliefs.

So, when they do that, they do not deserve the mercy or kindness that comes from a servant washing thier feet?

 

[mgsk]

So, when they do that, they do not deserve the mercy or kindness that comes from a servant washing thier feet?

Have a nice day, JustaServant.

 

[JustaServant]

Yes. Or at least only should be allowed.

What on earth are you talking about? And please don’t accuse me of subscribing to heretical beliefs. It is unbelievably insulting, especially given that you seem to have a penchant for misinterpreting even the most clearly written posts.

No, I am trying to understand your logic.
The idea that Christ only shows mercy and love to His own, and not the world, is a Calvinist belief.

 

[Brendan_64]

My understanding is still correct. The Catholic Church has jurisdiction over all the baptised by virtue of their baptism. They certainly are members of the Mystical Body, but only until they separate themselves by giving assent to heretical or schismatic beliefs.

So in effect you are saying that they were part of Christ’s Mystical Body because of their baptism, but once they attain the age of reason and remain as Protestants, Orthodox etc. they put themselves outside of the Body of Christ? Is this your own personal view or is it part of the Catechism of our Church?

What happens then when an adult chooses to become a Christian and is baptised in a Protestant Church. Are they part of the Body of Christ when they are baptised, or are they simultaneously part of Christ’s Body on Baptism, yet at the same immediately separated from Christ’s body as a result of them being Protestant?

 

[mgsk]

I’d be happy to have a discussion with you on that topic, Brendan, but it’s beyond the scope of this thread. This one might be on the road to getting closed soon, but that would just “help” things along too quickly!

 

[Ellen_Mary]

Pray to St. Monica. Her prayers converted Augustine and his father.

As to the pope and the washing of the feet. . . everyone is assuming that he will wash female feet. You can’t create an entire thread on an assumption.

Everyone is assuming that he or she has a right to comment on what the pope does that is not a sin. There is no sin involved here, if he did wash female feet, because as Boniface said, the pope is above every rule and law in the Church. Therefore, he cannot break what does not bind him. The only law that binds him is revealed moral law. This is not a matter of revealed moral law. God is not trying to bind the pope, people are. But people don’t have that right.

Before proceeding with this dialogue, everyone should step back, examine his or her conscience and ask one simple question: “Do I have the authority and the right to try to bind the successor of Peter? If not, then it is me who is sinning.”

I have already rested my case. I’ve told the brothers that the first peep about this there grave consequences. People want superiors, bishops and popes who exercise their authority, well we’re seeing it here. Pope Francis is exercising his authority to do things his way. All of a sudden, people don’t like that exercise of authority.

Then what exercise of authority do people want? Do we want a pope who exercises authority according to our perception of what is tradition and what is appropriate for a pope? If that’s the case, then he would not be exercising his authority. He would be submitting to the many voices around him. True authority is the free choice to do as he believes is best by the person who as the right to make that choice.

A parent has the right to make choices that he believes are for the good of his children. He must also make choices that are good for his soul. He cannot put his children above his soul. When the parent exercises the right to make those choices, he is exercising his authority, even when the children don’t like it.

The same is true of a pope. His first duty is to his soul. His second duty is to his ministry. He must choose to exercise his ministry in a way that is good for the Church without compromising his conscience. When he makes this choice, freely, he is exercising authority.

Authority is not about what you and I believe the pope should or should not do. It’s about what he believes he should or should not do and his right to make that choice and our duty to accept it even if we don’t like it, just as our children must accept our choices when they don’t like them.

We need to stop assuming what the man is going to do. We need to back down and stop legislating to a man who is not bound by those laws created by men.

I think you have misunderstood my post. I was pointing out that as a returning Catholic, reading that article gave me a feeling of love and compassion, a view my husband doesn’t share.

As my husband is very opiniated about ‘criminals or wrong do’ers’ (and most other topics) I was asking for any prayers or advice as to how to help my husband rediscover his Catholic faith, and some compassion for our fellow brother and sisters.

I did NOT and wouldn’t tell our dear Pope Francis that he was wrong in his proposed washing of feet to prisoners. I believe Pope Francis has already proved himself to be a great man with definate ideas on where to lead us. I am fully prepared to accept and follow his example.

 

[Brendan_64]

I’d be happy to have a discussion with you on that topic, Brendan, but it’s beyond the scope of this thread.

Another time then.

 

[OraLabora]

My understanding is still correct. The Catholic Church has jurisdiction over all the baptised by virtue of their baptism. They certainly are members of the Mystical Body, but only until they separate themselves by giving assent to heretical or schismatic beliefs.

The Church does not teach this.

The Church teaches that they are in imperfect communion. It also teaches that they one is not a heretic by being born into a Protestant community. The sin of heresy or schism was not theirs, but their ancestors’.

From the CCC (my bold):

Wounds to unity

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers … All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

 

[mgsk]

The Church does not teach this.

The Church teaches that they are in imperfect communion. It also teaches that they one is not a heretic by being born into a Protestant community. The sin of heresy or schism was not theirs, but their ancestors’.

From the CCC (my bold):

Well…I suppose I have to respond.

She most certainly does teach it. And yes, the Catechism is obviously correct in that baptism incorporates them into the Church. But that doesn’t say anything about the consequence of post-baptismal denial of Truth.

The now-replaced 1917 Code defined what it meant to be a heretic:
“After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and catholic faith, [such a one is] a heretic.”

Given that this isn’t present in the 1983 Code, it’s not surprising that the usage of this terminology has changed. Still, Canon 751 must apply to all of the baptized faithful:
“Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith.”

Only this understanding fits with the constant definition of the Church as reiterated by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi:
“That the Church is a body is frequently asserted in the Sacred Scriptures. “Christ,” says the Apostle, “is the Head of the Body of the Church.” If the Church is a body, it must be an unbroken unity, according to those words of Paul: “Though many we are one body in Christ.” But it is not enough that the Body of the Church should be an unbroken unity; it must also be something definite and perceptible to the senses as Our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Satis Cognitum asserts: “the Church is visible because she is a body.” Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely “pneumatological” as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are united by an invisible bond.”

We also have Pope Pius XII to thank for reiterating that “the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.”

So the distinction is going to be between material and formal heresy/schism.

 

[Boy_Wonder]

So when will priests renew their vows? That’s an importnat part of Holy Thursday Mass as well, no?

It will get done. Stop worrying.

 

[JReducation]

Dear oh dear, there really is some bile being spewed out towards Pope Francis on that site. It’s absolutely shameful.

It seems that certain people want a Pope, but only if that Pope does things the way they want him to it.

Pope Francis has managed to do more damage in 2 weeks than any Pope in the Church’s history.

This kind of statement is very sad. Objectively speaking, it is a sin of defamatioin.

The argument that the pope is breaking the rules in the GIRM does not hold theologically. Peter binds and unbinds, but he is not bound by anything other than what is divinely revealed. For this reason, Church law rightly says By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely” (1983 CIC c. 331).

Full power means that neither the law nor the faithful can restrict him, which is what people want to do. I may or may not like this idea. At the end of the day, theology tells me that Peter is the sole and highest authority in the Church and her liturgist.

This is a rather weak analogy. The Church has never sought out non-Catholics or members of other false sects for inclusion in her liturgies.

My friend, those whose feet are being washed are not ministers at the altar. Actually, the Church invites all people to the liturgy. To minister at the liturgy is another question. These individuals will not be ministering.

They still make bad representatives of the apostles in the liturgy though.

The focus that the Holy Father wants to give the ritual is Christ’s diakonia. You’re stuck on the apostles. You’re coming at this from a different perspective from that of the Holy Father. Therefore, you’re never going to understand him.

No, I’m not. But if you think the only thing non-Catholics should be barred from is receiving the Eucharist then I can see how you might interpret it that way. Non-Catholics/Christians should not be allowed to be lectors, altar boys, ushers, acolytes, torch bearers, or any number of liturgical roles either.

Let’s sort through this list. There are ministerial roles that are limited to Catholics: lector, acolyte (altar server), EMHC deacon and priest. Those are the only roles that are confined to Catholics.

My understanding is still correct. The Catholic Church has jurisdiction over all the baptised by virtue of their baptism.

No, that’s not the case. Canon 1 is very clear that the Church exercises authority only over Catholics.

They certainly are members of the Mystical Body, but only until they separate themselves by giving assent to heretical or schismatic beliefs.

There is a difference between a Catholic who separates himself and someone who was born outside of the Catholic faith. Church teaching and law does not allow Catholics to hold those born outside the Catholic Church culpable for the sins of our common ancestors 500 years ago.

The now-replaced 1917 Code defined what it meant to be a heretic:
"After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and catholic faith, [such a one is] a heretic."

The law was written with Catholics in mind, not non-Catholic Christians. That’s why the new code is more specific and the CCC explains what I said above. The Church does not hold as heretics these people. As I said above, Code 1 days that what’s in Canon Law only applies to the Latin Church. It doesn’t even apply to the other 22 Catholic Churches.

The Code of 1917 is no longer in force. When the Code of 1917 came into existence, all of the laws the came before, were abrogated unless they were confirmed by the code. We can’t impose law on those whom the law does not want to address.

You also must remember that there is a distinction between theology and law. Law is not theology. Theology guides law. But law does not guide theology. Law guides the faithful. Law certainly does not guide the pope. He is the source of the law. He imposes the law. The person who imposes the law is not the subject of the law. If you read canon law, you will see that it never says, “The pope will do X and not do Y”.

 

[Rich_C]

So in effect you are saying that they were part of Christ’s Mystical Body because of their baptism, but once they attain the age of reason and remain as Protestants, Orthodox etc. they put themselves outside of the Body of Christ? Is this your own personal view or is it part of the Catechism of our Church?

What happens then when an adult chooses to become a Christian and is baptised in a Protestant Church. Are they part of the Body of Christ when they are baptised, or are they simultaneously part of Christ’s Body on Baptism, yet at the same immediately separated from Christ’s body as a result of them being Protestant?

According to the Church, yes and yes.

From the Baltimore Catechism:

1. Why is the Catholic Church called the Mystical Body of Christ?
   The Catholic Church is called the Mystical Body of Christ because its members are united by supernatural bonds with one another and with Christ, their Head, thus resembling the members and head of the living human body.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

MODERATOR NOTICE

You’re way off course. Please get back to the original subject of this thread.

Before continuing this discussion, everyone should read Pope Watch. You must abide by these rules.

Thank You

 

[JustaServant]

Have a nice day, JustaServant.

Of course you’re going to leave without answering the question.

All this fuss over the washing of feet…incredible.
Do you know the origin of the practice? In the ancient world only the lowest of servants, or the youngest in the family would wash the feet of those which became dusty walking the roads of Israel.
It was a job whose only equivilant today is the guy who cleans the toilet in your office.
In the Gospel Jesus says He was doing this for an example. What great love and mercy our Lord had for the creatures He created.
And if we are truly His followers, we too should be ready to wash each others feet.
Why are trads so unwilling to follow our Lord’s lead?

 

[mike0219116]

Why are trads so unwilling to follow our Lord’s lead?

Do you seriously think the “trads” aren’t following the Lord?