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

[MJC2013]

Actually He clearly intended the Eucharist for others beyond the Apostles:

For the Eucharist Christ said: “for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.” - Matthew 26:28

But for the Washing of the Feet He clearly says: “I am not speaking of all of you. I know those whom I have chosen.” - John 13:18

Why did Francis ‘choose’ poor criminals, men and women prisoners, Christian and Muslim prisoners, instead of the rich, happy priests in the Vatican? Because he is stating, through his actions, that the church has failed those lost souls in prison. The Church has been so concerened with making money and ruling the WORLD OF FINANCE that it has lost its way.

This is not just empathetic symbolism. Francis is a Jesuit. Those who voted for him want a revolution in the Vatican – and want the moneychangers thrown out of the temple.

God protect him.

Francis is warning the Vatican that things are going to change.

 

[MJC2013]

Outside of CAF I have not met one, not one, Catholic who is remotely disturbed by Pope Francis’s washing of the feet of women.

The Church is not fractured or divided (with the exception of a very small minority) and I have already met people who are coming back to the Church and people of other Christian denominations who are now coming to our Masses, as a result of the actions and example of Pope Francis.

Red shoes, mozetta, not following the verbatum rubrics of the mandatum, there really are a lot more important things in the Church than this. Let’s move on and focus on what is really important.

The first great sin committed by the Catholic Church was the attempt to diminish the role of women in spirituality. God’s creation needs both men and women. The Catholic Church today is out of balance because of its casting-out of the Female Principle. It is dry and intellectual and rigid; and it is in desperate need of the mystical truth that the Female Principle can bring to it.

Of course, the Male Principle is afraid of the Female Principle. The Male Principle has been demeaning and torturing and repressing the Female Principle for centuries.

There can be no Heaven on Earth until the Male and the Female Principles are reunited in Holy and Mystical Marriage.

 

[Brendan_64]

The first great sin committed by the Catholic Church was the attempt to diminish the role of women in spirituality.

Woah!!!

So you’re accusing the Church of greatly sinning through it’s treatment of women?

You are in effect accusing the Lord’s Holy Church of being in a state of mortal sin.

That’s way out of line and has no basis in the Church’s teachings. It also has no scriptural basis.

What you are expressing is your own personal view and nothing more. You cannot accuse the Church of this.

There can be no Heaven on Earth until the Male and the Female Principles are reunited in Holy and Mystical Marriage

And your scriptural basis for this is?

I don’t want to offend you, but that sounds very ‘new-agey’, yin and yang to me.

 

[asnate]

just watched Easter Mass and Urbis et Orbis from St. Peters live.
No words to express my gratitude for this gift from God - to be together with all the pilgrims and Holy Father.
After Mass Holy Father went round the square on his popemobile, greeting pilgrims, hugging children. An Italian guy gave him a football shirt.
I think that this very explicit message of love and hope is what our world needs.
God bless Pope Francis!

 

[Brendan_64]

The first great sin committed by the Catholic Church

So you think the Catholic Church is guilty of sin? How can this be possible? Does the Catholic Church have an individual soul that can be separated from God?

Surely only individuals can be guilty of sin, not institutions? Is the Catholic Church an individual with an individual soul?

 

[Christine85]

Uhm… do you not read Catholic blogs? Fr Z, Jimmy Akin, Mark Shea?

Because there have been some lively debates about this on those sites, and others.

Can’t really be bothered reading all the posts but are you against the Pope washing the feet of women?
I don’t see what the problem is. Did not Jesus love women as much as he did men? Did Jesus love men more than women? No. For instance his love of Mary Magdalen and various other women in the Bible especially his mother.

I don’t know if you think it’s an outrage or not as I said I cannot be bothered reading all the posts, but as for your reference to other blogs saying it’s an outrage, well they obviously have a problem with the new Pope then. And to me, that’s not right to be against the Pope if your Catholic. You are meant to trust him. I have not had a problem with the last two Popes as to me I believe you are supposed to have utter respect that they are fulfilling the will of God.

 

[Lucky7]

I truly hope your overall sentiments bear fruit, Sally,. But I’ve been around long enough and I’ve experienced the Faith from deep within and from far without, and I can state most certainty that the Devil doesn’t just roll-over in the face of holy men and women. On the contrary, the fires of hell flame high when challenged with such threats. And this old world is quickly returning to all the timeless idols of it’s pagan past. And that in itself gives Satan a powerful hand.

Will he win? No. of course not.

Will he take many a soul with him and reek much destruction? You can bank on it.

We are in the midst of spiritual warfare here, and the last thing we need is more papal confusion and Church unsteadiness, but I suppose it is a necessary “evil” before this ship is realigned on a steady course.

But make no mistake about it, the bumpy ride has just begun.

I hear what you are saying loud and clear. As much as I am trying to understand some of the things happening in our Church (even before Pope Francis), I also know that the Devil doesn’t just attack me. We all know he tempted Christ Himself. I see much confusion in the Church and I do wonder whether some of the things our current Pope has done will only add to that confusion (I think the main thing being the change in the Feet Washing).

For example, many Catholics seem to think that any religion will get you to Heaven…that there is no need to be Catholic. They believe Vatican II changed what our Faith taught about Catholicism. When our Church leaders attend other religious ceremonies or include other faiths in our ceremonies, I think that adds/will add to that incorrect belief/perception.

Having said that, I do remain hopeful that our current Pope will also be bold in proclaiming the Truths of our Faith loud and clear…the ones that the world doesn’t like (not just the ones everyone “gets” and agrees with such as helping the poor and reaching the “outskirts”…ie. social justice). My hope is that he is laying the groundwork, getting a lot of people to pay attention, and then he will come out with the tough stuff.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

But Jesus also said: “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.”
The same Catholic Encyclopedia tells us:

Christ’s command to wash one another’s feet must have been understood from the beginning in a literal sense, for St. Paul (1 Timothy 5:10) implies that a widow to be honoured and consecrated in the Church should be one “having testimony for her good works, if she have received to harbour, if she have washed the saints’ feet”.

Now if it was an all-male affair, it would have been absurd to allow a woman to be involved in it, let alone to praise her for doing it.

Two problems here: If that is the original understanding, then why was it not open to laity washing the feet of laity? And second, why was it ever restricted to clergy washing the feet of male laity only?

AND, look at the restrictions Paul also cites:

“Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years old, married only once, with a reputation for good works, namely, that she has raised children, practiced hospitality, washed the feet of the holy ones, helped those in distress, involved herself in every good work. But exclude younger widows, for when their sensuality estranges them from Christ, they want to marry and will incur condemnation for breaking their first pledge.” - 1 Timothy 5:9-12

 

[Lucky7]

Cor cordis,

I’m sure I haven’t read all of your posts, but have you commented on the inclusion of a non-Catholic? It seems to me that you are focused on the inclusion of females. For me, the inclusion of a non-Catholic/non-Faithful is much more significant.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

It was an act of hospitality towards guests, initiated by the owner of a house and performed by his servants. How many biblical scenes with Jesus at home do you know? In the midst of multitudes = outdoors. He was a guest in the Pharisee’s house; He was a guest of Mary and Martha, not the owner of their house.

Is Christ not the owner of the Church’s house: the body of the Church? Is this ritual restrict only to a physical building? If so, then the act of humility is only confined to specific buildings? Did Jesus own the upper room of the Last Supper?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

" had to be taught to His constant followers, not to random people, males or females, who weren’t supposed to be His constant followers. Remember Judas? Peter who later lied when he was asked “weren’t you with him?” and then repented? Or the others who ran away when Jesus was crucified? BUT the other lesson - about an act of charity and humility open to all - comes with the command “you should do as I have done for you”.

Humility restricted in lesson only to His “constant followers”? What? Well if that is the case, then why isn’t this a restricted sacrament with specific limitations applied to the the souls of those involved? i.e. not mortal sin “and you clean?”

And the command “you should do as I have done for you” says absolutely nothing about laity. Christ never said “and you should do this to many others” as He clearly implied in the Eucharist.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Then tell this to the authors of Caeremoniale Episcoporum who didn’t restrict it to clergy and used “persons” when they could easily use “males” / “viri”. Or tell this to the early Church who understood it as being linked with the ceremony of baptism. Weren’t women baptized too?

Ah, but Baptisms were an open affair performed in public, were they not? Were people “chosen” to receive the cleansing waters, or did they voluntarily come on their own accord?

I question the reasoning and the scriptural basis of the authors of Caeremoniale Episcoporum.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

You can’t distribute the Eucharist to people who don’t believe that they receive Christ in this sacrament. The Eucharist is a sacrament. But one doesn’t have to “believe in feet washing” - there is no sacrament involved. Big difference.

Ah, Christ’s words beg to differ. You just stated:

The Last Supper was a reunion with his constant followers, the apostles. The lesson about “And you are clean, though not every one of you”

Two things here: the stipulation for spiritual cleanliness is stated in the Washing of The Feet. Also, Judas was allowed to participate in this as well as the Eucharist. An exact parallel. The Washing of The Feet was also a reunion of His constant Followers - no?

This sure sounds like sacrament with specific restrictions. No?

 

[Lucky7]

Ah, Christ’s words beg to differ. You just stated:

Two things here: the stipulation for spiritual cleanliness is stated in the Washing of The Feet. Also, Judas was allowed to participate in this as well as the Eucharist. An exact parallel. The Washing of The Feet was also a reunion of His constant Followers - no?

This sure sounds like sacrament with specific restrictions. No?

You are taking this too far. This was never understood by the Church to be a sacrament.

 

[Brendan_64]

With regard to the mandatum, there is nothing whatsoever in the rubrics that refers to the apostles. There is also nothing in the rite that states that there should be 12 men whose feet should be washed (it doesn’t state how many). Many people do interpret it to represent this, but that is a personal interpretation, and doesn’t necessarily represent the position of the Church.

There is no specific link in the rubrics to the washing of the feet of the 12 apostles, so building a case against the washing of women’s feet on this basis is building a defence based on a personal interpretation of what the rite means.

There is however a very specific mention in the rubrics explaining the rite in terms of “Christ’s gesture of service and charity”. Since Christ’s service and charity extends to both men and women, it can be strongly argued that washing the feet of women is very much in accordance with this.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Laity washing the feet of the laity doesn’t involve the same sense of “charity and humility” (the quote from Caeremoniale).

Why? Are the laity all equal in their piety?

Jesus is above the apostles; rich people, monarchs, popes, bishops are above poor people, free people are above imprisoned people. “No servant is greater than his master” IS a lesson in humility taught by Jesus, anticipating the temptations of pride by so many of His followers. Rich people, monarchs, popes, bishops can practice it just for humility’s sake if they do it pharisaically (i.e. let’s leave our luxury and splendid isolation for a moment and let’s show that “we care about people”). But humility is not meant as to be separated from charity: again, the act of washing the feet of guests was an act of hospitality, care and respect - as Jesus emphasized when He admonished Simon.

Well if that is true, then in essence (and in practice) the laity (especially the advantaged i.e. young, rich, powerful etc) are being denied an opportunity to serve the lowly by washing their feet - no?

But wait: What about already being “clean”? Does this mean that the clergy with mortal sin on their soul are not allowed to perform this ritual? Or, do they take on the image of Christ in this rite? If so, doesn’t that further imply that this is indeed a sacrament?

This is all so random and arbitrary in its ever-evolving interpretations that there seems to be nothing that prevents it from being open to everyone including laity washing the feet of laity. Which BTW, is done in many protestant churches.

 

[sojo]

Washing feet was and is not a sacrament. The Church teaches us what the 7 sacraments are. No foot washing is mentioned.

As taught in catechism, a sacrament is an outward sign of a real inward spirtiual grace. No inward spiritual grace is involved in foot washing. There is the outward sign and the outward result (getting clean toes). And a real lesson in humility to the one getting one’s feet washed by someone they consider a more holy or “better” person as well as to all who watch.

Lessons can be profound and meaningful. But they aren’t sacraments.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

The Church is hardly “going to expand” this in regards to non-clergy - I thought you noticed that the washing the feet of lay people was documented many centuries ago, so it’s not a novelty that the current pope is trying to introduce.

Why isn’t it going to expand it? It already has from its original form in the Gospels?

I thought that you had noticed that the restricted washing of the clergy’s feet was document many centuries before that by Christ in the Gospels. Therefore, introducing the laity was a novelty when it was first introduce.

And please tell me, if washing the feet of women is such an abomination, how come that the previous TWO popes haven’t objected to this?

Did they wash the feet of women also?

Is there no standing law that restricts the washing of women’s feet in parishes?

Can you associate Benedict XVI with “a new-age slippery liturgical slope of tolerance”?

Why not? Are you implying a differing ideology between Benedict and Francis?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

??? You really have a very dim view of the people of my parish (despite having never met any of them).

Relax Brandan. You live in a blessed parish of unified virtue unique to the rest of the Catholic world. I get it.

More power to you. Go in Peace.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

That is a straw man argument.

The Pope is most definitely not bound by Church Law, but he is of course (as pointed out by another poster) bound by Divine Law. However I’m sure you would agree that the washing of women’s feet (or not) on Holy Thursday is not a matter of Divine Law.

Then you have no objections to laity washing the feet of laity - right?