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

[Marauder]

This is not a performance. It is who Jorge Mario Bergoglio is.

Excellent post.

 

[godisgood77]

** The pope is the papacy. Without him there is no papacy. He is the highest ranking legislator.**

Not sure I agree with this… i think BXVI’s abdication is a clear indicator that the office of the papacy is bigger than the person occupying it. I’m open to being covinced otherwise.

 

[godisgood77]

a. The pope is the papacy. Without him there is no papacy. He is the highest ranking legislator.
.

Not sure I agree with this… i think BXVI’s abdication is a clear indicator that the office of the papacy is bigger than the person occupying it. I’m open to being covinced otherwise.

 

[mercytruth]

Not sure I agree with this… i think BXVI’s abdication is a clear indicator that the office of the papacy is bigger than the person occupying it. I’m open to being covinced otherwise.

I get the impression that Pope Francis is not comfortable with the title and authority of being either a Cardinal, or a Pope. I think he is much more spiritually attuned in being a
Bishop among bishops.

 

[TimothyH]

Not sure I agree with this… i think BXVI’s abdication is a clear indicator that the office of the papacy is bigger than the person occupying it. I’m open to being covinced otherwise.

The office is empty without a person filling it.

-Tim-

 

[godisgood77]

The office is empty without a person filling it.

-Tim-

Right…the office is empty, but still exists.

 

[JReducation]

Not sure I agree with this… i think BXVI’s abdication is a clear indicator that the office of the papacy is bigger than the person occupying it. I’m open to being covinced otherwise.

Let’s look at this in smaller pieces.

First: Pope Benedict only defines, his papacy, not the papacy.

Second: In Canon Law and in theology there is no such office as the papacy. Pope and Pacy are secular terms, not canonical or theological terms.

Third: The Chair of Peter and the Office of the Bishop of Rome do exist. Like any other See, the See of Rome is defined by the Ordinary of that See. The Bishop of Rome has the same right as any other diocesan bishop to restructure how he does business. The Bishop of Rome occupies the Chair of Peter by default.

We tend to focus on the papacy at the expense of the Bishop of Rome, when in fact, there would be no papacy were their no Bishop of Rome.

There is the See of Peter. But Peter never left a manual or bylaws on how to run his diocese and how his successors were to do business. These are layers that came with different popes for different reasons. What one pope does cannot bind a successor. Pope Francis proved this.

On February 27, 2013, Pope Benedict inserted into Canon Law that the cardinals were to make their pledge of obedience, one by one, in a public ceremony, outside of mass, not in the Sistine Chapel at the moment of election.

On the evening of March 13, 2013, Pope Francis abrogated the law that Pope Benedict had made. Took the cardinal’s oath in private at the Sistine chapel and inserted a symbolic pledge of fidelity into the inauguration. So much for one pope binding another.

Third:

I get the impression that Pope Francis is not comfortable with the title and authority of being either a Cardinal, or a Pope. I think he is much more spiritually attuned in being a
Bishop among bishops.

Pope Francis is a Jesuit. It’s not a matter of being uncomfortable. It’s a matter of being a religious first and priest second.

Jesuits do not accept positions in the hierarchy except under obedience. However, the condition for the Jesuits has always been that they must fulfill the duties of the office, but they are not bound to the externals of the office. Jesuits, Dominicans and Franciscans are free of the external expressions of the office, such as the clothing, the gestures, the thrones, the cathedras, etc. This was the condition that their founders wrote into their legislation and the Church accepted those conditions centuries ago. It has always been this way. Look at Pope Pius V. He was very much a friar.

A Jesuit pope is free to make use of as much or as little of the externals of the papacy as he wants, because he’s a Jesuit.

Until the people on this forum start thinking of him as as JESUIT pope or a REGULAR pope, they’re not going to feel comfortable.

I’m going to ask the mods to put up big signs on the forum that say.

CURRENTLY, THE CHAIR OF PETER IS OCCUPIED BY A CONSECRATED RELIGIOUS, SORRY FOR THE TECHNICAL GLITCH. WE’LL HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE NEXT SECULAR CARDINAL TO BE AVAILABLE.

It’s frustrating to us religious to be explaining this over and over. I lost count of the number of interviews online and on Salt & Light and on EWTN where this has been explained by the Jesuits themselves.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Pope Francis is a Jesuit. It’s not a matter of being uncomfortable. It’s a matter of being a religious first and priest second.

Jesuits do not accept positions in the hierarchy except under obedience. However, the condition for the Jesuits has always been that they must fulfill the duties of the office, but they are not bound to the externals of the office. Jesuits, Dominicans and Franciscans are free of the external expressions of the office, such as the clothing, the gestures, the thrones, the cathedras, etc. This was the condition that their founders wrote into their legislation and the Church accepted those conditions centuries ago. It has always been this way. Look at Pope Pius V. He was very much a friar.

A Jesuit pope is free to make use of as much or as little of the externals of the papacy as he wants, because he’s a Jesuit.

Until the people on this forum start thinking of him as as JESUIT pope or a REGULAR pope, they’re not going to feel comfortable.

I agree. This is really helpful, and I also wish people would understand it, and thirdly I wish that people would let Pope Francis define his own papacy as well.

 

[TimothyH]

Thank you for bearing with us in our ignorance, and in our pride, Brother.

-Tim-

 

[mercytruth]

Let’s look at this in smaller pieces.

First: Pope Benedict only defines, his papacy, not the papacy.

Second: In Canon Law and in theology there is no such office as the papacy. Pope and Pacy are secular terms, not canonical or theological terms.

Third: The Chair of Peter and the Office of the Bishop of Rome do exist. Like any other See, the See of Rome is defined by the Ordinary of that See. The Bishop of Rome has the same right as any other diocesan bishop to restructure how he does business. The Bishop of Rome occupies the Chair of Peter by default.

We tend to focus on the papacy at the expense of the Bishop of Rome, when in fact, there would be no papacy were their no Bishop of Rome.

There is the See of Peter. But Peter never left a manual or bylaws on how to run his diocese and how his successors were to do business. These are layers that came with different popes for different reasons. What one pope does cannot bind a successor. Pope Francis proved this.

On February 27, 2013, Pope Benedict inserted into Canon Law that the cardinals were to make their pledge of obedience, one by one, in a public ceremony, outside of mass, not in the Sistine Chapel at the moment of election.

On the evening of March 13, 2013, Pope Francis abrogated the law that Pope Benedict had made. Took the cardinal’s oath in private at the Sistine chapel and inserted a symbolic pledge of fidelity into the inauguration. So much for one pope binding another.

Third:

Pope Francis is a Jesuit. It’s not a matter of being uncomfortable. It’s a matter of being a religious first and priest second.

Jesuits do not accept positions in the hierarchy except under obedience. However, the condition for the Jesuits has always been that they must fulfill the duties of the office, but they are not bound to the externals of the office. Jesuits, Dominicans and Franciscans are free of the external expressions of the office, such as the clothing, the gestures, the thrones, the cathedras, etc. This was the condition that their founders wrote into their legislation and the Church accepted those conditions centuries ago. It has always been this way. Look at Pope Pius V. He was very much a friar.

A Jesuit pope is free to make use of as much or as little of the externals of the papacy as he wants, because he’s a Jesuit.

Until the people on this forum start thinking of him as as JESUIT pope or a REGULAR pope, they’re not going to feel comfortable.

I’m going to ask the mods to put up big signs on the forum that say.

CURRENTLY, THE CHAIR OF PETER IS OCCUPIED BY A CONSECRATED RELIGIOUS, SORRY FOR THE TECHNICAL GLITCH. WE’LL HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE NEXT SECULAR CARDINAL TO BE AVAILABLE.

It’s frustrating to us religious to be explaining this over and over. I lost count of the number of interviews online and on Salt & Light and on EWTN where this has been explained by the Jesuits themselves.

I said what I did because on the day of his selection he addressed Pope Emeritus Benedict as ‘bishop’ and himself as ‘bishop’. He is still wearing the pectoral cross that he wore when he was a bishop. Yes, it is very important to understand that he is a religious occupying the Chair of Peter, and thank you for pointing this out, and for your patience.

God’s peace

 

[JReducation]

I agree. This is really helpful, and I also wish people would understand it, and thirdly I wish that people would let Pope Francis define his own papacy as well.

I agree. We definitely need to get away from trying to define people’s places. I understand that much of it comes from the anxiety that is caused by a world where there are few absolutes left. We tend to grab on to something as if it were a life preserver. When someone like Pope Francis comes around, it’s as if someone pricked our floaties with a pin. What we didn’t know was that the thing that we held on to as an absolute, was never an absolute.

St. Boniface wrote that there are only two absolutes that bind a pope. Reveled doctrine and revealed moral law.

Thank you for bearing with us in our ignorance, and in our pride, Brother.

-Tim-

I wouldn’t call it ignorance. I think that we have become part of the very culture that we’re so critical of. Sadly, America is moving into a culture that gets its information from the Internet or the news media. We’re moving away from a culture of reading. Even in schools and colleges, if it’s not part of your major, you don’t read it.

I am 100% convinced that the most important course in any academic program his history. I believe that it should be taught every years from the day that you walk into school until you leave graduate school. Unfortunately, history is looked upon as one of the expendable courses when making education budgets.

What’s the result? Situations like this. People don’t know their secular or religious history. If one does not know that, then one can’t properly distinguish between an orange and a tangerine,

 

[JReducation]

I said what I did because on the day of his selection he addressed Pope Emeritus Benedict as ‘bishop’ and himself as ‘bishop’. He is still wearing the pectoral cross that he wore when he was a bishop. Yes, it is very important to understand that he is a religious occupying the Chair of Peter, and thank you for pointing this out, and for your patience.

God’s peace

When a bishop retires, he remains a bishop. Holy Orders is attached to the person, not to the See.

In the case of a pope, the college of cardinals does not elect a pope. That’s a secular expression. The college elects the Bishop of Rome who is by default the Pontiff. If we observe very closely, it is the See of Rome that is on-going. The Bishop of Rome, like every other bishop, can reorganize his way of doing business while he is the Ordinary. Once he is no longer the Ordinary, whatever he setup is no longer in force until the new bishop comes in an confirms or changes it.

 

[mercytruth]

When a bishop retires, he remains a bishop. Holy Orders is attached to the person, not to the See.

In the case of a pope, the college of cardinals does not elect a pope. That’s a secular expression. The college elects the Bishop of Rome who is by default the Pontiff. If we observe very closely, it is the See of Rome that is on-going. The Bishop of Rome, like every other bishop, can reorganize his way of doing business while he is the Ordinary. Once he is no longer the Ordinary, whatever he setup is no longer in force until the new bishop comes in an confirms or changes it.

I think this helps, but everyone assumes that the college of cardinals elects a pope and not by default. Is not the Pontiff the absolute monarch of the Vatican City State? Will Jesuit Pope Francis exercise his spiritual authority as Bishop of Rome, and also as absolute monarch of the Vatican City State? Can Jesuit Pope Francis wear two hats?

God’s peace

 

[Capuchinfan1337]

That is amazing!

 

[JReducation]

I think this helps, but everyone assumes that the college of cardinals elects a pope and not by default. Is not the Pontiff the absolute monarch of the Vatican City State? Will Jesuit Pope Francis exercise his spiritual authority as Bishop of Rome, and also as absolute monarch of the Vatican City State? Can Jesuit Pope Francis wear two hats?

God’s peace

The cardinals elect the Bishop of Rome who is by default the Pontiff. The monarchy was a temporal title. If you observe the new coat of arms that Pope Benedict created, you’ll notice the absence of the tiara. He eliminated the title of “monarch of Vatican City State”. The pope goes by the title Sovereign of Vatican City State or simply Head of State. Pope Benedict was trying to drive home what has actually been the reality for a long time. The pope has no temporal power other than that small city.

Sometimes, it feels as if the pope and some of the faithful were playing tug of war. The pope wants to avoid being a monarch and some faithful want to push him to be one. My personal opinion is that it will never happen again. I could be wrong, but somehow I don’t think so. This new generation of priests is the John Paul II generation. They’re very trained and very oriented toward a pastoral form of leadership rather than a royal form. All of the current cardinals were created by John Paul II or Benedict XVI. There is no one left from before 1978.

 

[JustaServant]

Here’s a related thought to certain trads who are upset at this.

In John’s account of the events in the Upper Room, he describes for us the washing of the disciples feet. The section right after that is Judas’ departure to betray our Lord.
So that means, as Judas walked off into the night to betray Christ, his feet were clean from Jesus’ washing. Jesus washed the feet of His betrayer.

A further thought, the only objection Jesus got to the washing was Peter, not Judas.

If it was good enough for Jesus to wash the feet of His betrayer, why would anyone object to the Pope washing the feet of prisoners?

 

[JReducation]

Here’s a related thought to certain trads who are upset at this.

In John’s account of the events in the Upper Room, he describes for us the washing of the disciples feet. The section right after that is Judas’ departure to betray our Lord.
So that means, as Judas walked off into the night to betray Christ, his feet were clean from Jesus’ washing. Jesus washed the feet of His betrayer.

A further thought, the only objection Jesus got to the washing was Peter, not Judas.

If it was good enough for Jesus to wash the feet of His betrayer, why would anyone object to the Pope washing the feet of prisoners?

I like that. I’ll have to borrow that idea.

My feeling on this is that very often, those who want the pope to be a powerful temporal ruler are the same people who want to tell him how to go about it. In real life, if you try to dictate to a powerful temporal ruler, it can cause you your life. It comes down to a game of charades. “Let’s pretend that the pope is powerful. He can exercise power and authority as long as it’s within these parameters.”

There is a problem with this, if there are so many parameters, then where is the ruler’s freedom?

 

[mercytruth]

The cardinals elect the Bishop of Rome who is by default the Pontiff. The monarchy was a temporal title. If you observe the new coat of arms that Pope Benedict created, you’ll notice the absence of the tiara. He eliminated the title of “monarch of Vatican City State”. The pope goes by the title Sovereign of Vatican City State or simply Head of State. Pope Benedict was trying to drive home what has actually been the reality for a long time. The pope has no temporal power other than that small city.

Sometimes, it feels as if the pope and some of the faithful were playing tug of war. The pope wants to avoid being a monarch and some faithful want to push him to be one. My personal opinion is that it will never happen again. I could be wrong, but somehow I don’t think so. This new generation of priests is the John Paul II generation. They’re very trained and very oriented toward a pastoral form of leadership rather than a royal form. All of the current cardinals were created by John Paul II or Benedict XVI. There is no one left from before 1978.

Could we assume that as ‘Sovereign of the Vatican City State’ that there is any temporal authority for modern Pontiffs, such as the overseeing of the Vatican Bank?

Or, is this temporal authority over the Vatican City State in title only for the Pontiff as one who gives his stamp of approval, while the cardinals of the Vatican City State and the Curia have the real decision making authority?

It seems then, that the dual pastoral and temporal authority of the last three Pontiffs have been in conflict with the holy image of the spiritual and pastoral authority of the Pope, and that decisions involving temporal affairs have been given over to the Cardinals.

As a Jesuit, could Pope Francis involve himself with the overseeing of the Vatican Bank, or any other temporal affairs of the Vatican City State which he thought were necessary?

I do appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut and your patience. The differences between a ‘religious’ and a ‘secular’ Pope are distinctions which I have never heard of anywhere, and is just one of many things regarding the Vatican City State and the Curia that remain under the radar.

God’s peace

 

[mercytruth]

Here’s a related thought to certain trads who are upset at this.

In John’s account of the events in the Upper Room, he describes for us the washing of the disciples feet. The section right after that is Judas’ departure to betray our Lord.
So that means, as Judas walked off into the night to betray Christ, his feet were clean from Jesus’ washing. Jesus washed the feet of His betrayer.

A further thought, the only objection Jesus got to the washing was Peter, not Judas.

If it was good enough for Jesus to wash the feet of His betrayer, why would anyone object to the Pope washing the feet of prisoners?

The Church will always have betrayers. Washing the feet of twelve prisoners, would then possibly send a message that the church is full of betrayers, which message I would not want to assume Pope Francis is portraying.

 

[McCall1981]

Here’s a related thought to certain trads who are upset at this.

In John’s account of the events in the Upper Room, he describes for us the washing of the disciples feet. The section right after that is Judas’ departure to betray our Lord.
So that means, as Judas walked off into the night to betray Christ, his feet were clean from Jesus’ washing. Jesus washed the feet of His betrayer.

A further thought, the only objection Jesus got to the washing was Peter, not Judas.

If it was good enough for Jesus to wash the feet of His betrayer, why would anyone object to the Pope washing the feet of prisoners?

The arguement of the “Trads” is not that the prisoners are not good enough, or important enough. It’s that they believe it would be more beneficial to the Church as a whole (which includes the prisoners) for him to wash the feet of Priests etc in the Lateran or St. Peters.

Whether you agree with this or not is your opinion. But to imply that “Trads” are saying the prisoners aren’t “worthy enough” is just creating a straw man agruement so you can then shoot it down.