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

[JReducation]

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/godandthemachine/files/2012/04/Pope-in-Dalmatic.jpg

It’s important to observe the vestment that the pope is wearing is a dalmatic, the vestment of the deacon. He is representing Christ the deacon, the one who serves. The focus is on Christ’s ministry. That part cannot be changed.

Who gets their feet washed, the pope can do as he wishes. He is the supreme legislator of the liturgy.

I will ask this? Why is everyone assuming that he will not wash the feet of men? Isn’t it a little premature to make such an assumption?

I will add my second question to the first, which I asked the brothers tonight. Who has the authority to say that the pope is wrong on a matter that is neither doctrinal nor moral? Does he not have the inalienable right to make liturgical law and to dispense with it?

Is the pope a slave to tradition or is it the pope’s right to determine what fits and what does not fit in with tradition?

Who is the final arbiter, the person reading this or the pope?

Where does our obedience and fidelity belong, with ourselves or with the Pontiff?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Perhaps the quote below, pasted from something the poster Abyssinia linked on this thread is indirectly pertinent to what Brother JR just said:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=765520&page=25

(Post 365 on that page, from Vatican Insider. Bolding below, mine. Please take this only as an angle or a perception, not as a repudiation of anyone’s views on this thread!)

"The real continuity between Benedict XVI and Francis is seen in the many gestures, hints and points of focus that have emerged in these first days of Francis’ pontificate: The day after Francis’ election, Benedict XVI said that “the Pope makes Christ’s light - not his own - shine wherever he goes. In a meeting with journalists Francis stressed that the “protagonist” is Christ, not the Pope.

Their sensitivity for the protection of creation – which humans are at the top of – and the environment is something the two popes have in common. Then there are their thoughts on careerism and “spiritual worldliness” in the Church: anyone who has listened to one of Ratzinger’s deep homilies on these issues cannot deny there is continuity between his ideas and Francis’. Only those who are not familiar with his writings on the liturgy could be led to think that they gave importance to superficial aspects. In as far as the discontinuity between Ratzinger and Bergoglio is concerned; we need to ask ourselves to what extent Benedict XVI’s collaborators helped him deliver his core message. Just as Paul VI should be rescued from certain “Montinians” who consider themselves to be the only ones authorised to keep his memory alive through their own vision of his papacy, so Benedict XVI should be salvaged from certain “Ratzingerians” who have tried on more than one occasion to teach him how to be Pope."

 

[doormouse73]

Unfortunately, there are some people all over the Internet challenging the pope’s decision as if they had a right to do so. This is the part that I find totally unacceptable. When did we get the right to judge anything that the pope does, unless it’s a sin?

this is the best post ive read on this thread…people take heed please…

JReducation i tip my hat to you sir…:tiphat:

 

[vames]

After all, I thought there was a point to Jesus limiting His feet washing to the Last Supper/Apostles event. Had he wanted to wash the feet of everyone and anyone, he would have done it. But he didn’t. The Biblical and historical and Apostolic event doesn’t align with widespread current practice of washing the feet of women. It doesn’t add up.

At the Last Supper, Jesus washed their feet and shared the bread and wine with his apostles. All the evening, there was no one else in that room but Jesus and the apostles. Then how come that women are not allowed to have their feet washed, but they are allowed to receive the Eucharist? Paraphrasing you, “Had he wanted to share the bread and wine with everyone and anyone, he would have done it. But he didn’t.” Using your logic, women should not be allowed to receive the Eucharist.

 

[McCall1981]

(This is all assuming that he does indeed wash women’s feet on Thursday, which he probably will, and if he doesn’t then obviously none of this applies.)

Right now, the rule for this rite is that the Priest is not to wash the feet of women. So, for Franics to intentionally and knowingly break this rule, yes that IS a sin, and we absolutely should question it. He has the “legal” ability to do this yes, but not the moral ability to choose to break this rule.

Let me repeat, he has the legal and moral ability to change the rule, but not the moral ability to break the rule. It’s not the washing of the women’s feet that is the sin per se, but it’s the intentional breaking of the rule that is the sin.

And no, if he breaks the rule, that does NOT somehow automatically change the rule becasue of what he did. The rule remains exactly the same until he officially makes a legal change to it.

All he has to do is change the rule to include women and then the problem is solved. As is (again, assuming he washes women’s feet) he would simply be breaking a rule, which is morally wrong in and of itself, and also encourages others to adopt the same attitude in other situations, which compounds the problem.

Since he can easily change the rule, there is no reason to let the rule stand and then actively break it.

 

[Moore11]

(

Let me repeat, he has the legal and moral ability to change the rule, but not the moral ability to break the rule. It’s not the washing of the women’s feet that is the sin per se, but it’s the intentional breaking of the rule that is the sin.

And no, if he breaks the rule, that does NOT somehow automatically change the rule becasue of what he did. The rule remains exactly the same until he officially makes a legal change to it.
.

Absolutely! In fact I would add that if a Pope knowingly ignored or broke a rule without changing it, he would be causing scandal and making a hard road for those who do follow the rules. And that could most certainly be a sin!

 

[McCall1981]

At the Last Supper, Jesus washed their feet and shared the bread and wine with his apostles. All the evening, there was no one else in that room but Jesus and the apostles. Then how come that women are not allowed to have their feet washed, but they are allowed to receive the Eucharist? Paraphrasing you, “Had he wanted to share the bread and wine with everyone and anyone, he would have done it. But he didn’t.” Using your logic, women should not be allowed to receive the Eucharist.

I think the distinction is that the washing of the men’s feet was Apostolic, in that it had to do with them being Apostles, whereas the Eucharist is not Apostolic in that it is for everyone. I don’t remember the exact theology of it (I learned about it in college), but the distinction is based on more than just who happened to be in the room at the time.

 

[vames]

I think the distinction is that the washing of the men’s feet was Apostolic, in that it had to do with them being Apostles, whereas the Eucharist is not Apostolic in that it is for everyone. I don’t know the exact theology of it, but the distinction is based on more than just who happened to be in the room at the time.

Then tell us where did Jesus say to them “Look, I wash your feet because you are The Male Apostles; if you were ordinary human beings, i.e. people of both sexes, I wouldn’t wash your feet. But you will become ordinary human beings the very next minute, when I’ll share the bread and wine with you”.

 

[Ellen_Mary]

When I read this article in Catholic Herald (I have just found this publication) I instantly thought what a good Pope we have in Pope Francis. I then read how he’d done this before and saw the picture of him washing and kissing the feet of young person in a drug shelter. I felt love of Our Lord shining through.

I said to my husband ‘I new Pope is a great man’ he asked why and I began to read the article. However he ranted that it was wrong, and The Pope shouldn’t do that that the prisoners everywhere should be allowed to rot (he has very strict views on prisioners and other unsavoury people) he should wash the feet of disabled or elderly.

I try to pray for my husband to help him return to the Church, but I fear I’m not making headway. Other than for me to keep praying, does anyone have any ideas to help reignite his very long since gone Catholic faith? I have returned to the Church and I’m so happy I did. However my husband although a cradle Catholic like myself, doesn’t feel the same as I do.

Thank you and God bless.

 

[McCall1981]

Then tell us where did Jesus say to them “Look, I wash your feet because you are The Male Apostles; if you were ordinary human beings, i.e. people of both sexes, I wouldn’t wash your feet. But you will become ordinary human beings the very next minute, when I’ll share the bread and wine with you”.

Tell me where He said the Trinity, or the Immaculate Conception, or His two natures in one, or being against contraception, or any number of other things we as Catholics believe. We have more in the Church than just the words Jesus said in the Bible.

As I said, I don’t remember the specifics, feel free to look them up. The foot washing has to do with the Apostles’ role in the Church, the Eucharist does not. You don’t have to agree with it, but that is what the Church has said.

 

[McCall1981]

When I read this article in Catholic Herald (I have just found this publication) I instantly thought what a good Pope we have in Pope Francis. I then read how he’d done this before and saw the picture of him washing and kissing the feet of young person in a drug shelter. I felt love of Our Lord shining through.

I said to my husband ‘I new Pope is a great man’ he asked why and I began to read the article. However he ranted that it was wrong, and The Pope shouldn’t do that that the prisoners everywhere should be allowed to rot (he has very strict views on prisioners and other unsavoury people) he should wash the feet of disabled or elderly.

I try to pray for my husband to help him return to the Church, but I fear I’m not making headway. Other than for me to keep praying, does anyone have any ideas to help reignite his very long since gone Catholic faith? I have returned to the Church and I’m so happy I did. However my husband although a cradle Catholic like myself, doesn’t feel the same as I do.

Thank you and God bless.

I think all you can do is encourage him, without trying to push him. Maybe start with small things like saying a prayer together. I’ve found that people (including me) are very habit driven, so his resistence could be more about his being in the habit of not being engaged in his faith, rather than actually rejecting it. If you make little things like a quick prayer together, the “norm” it’ll probably be easier for him to warm up to bigger things. I’ll pray for you

 

[vames]

Tell me where He said the Trinity, or the Immaculate Conception, or His two natures in one, or being against contraception, or any number of other things we as Catholics believe. We have more in the Church than just the words Jesus said in the Bible.

You are talking about dogmas, I am talking about a mere custom - the custom of allowing only men at the feet washing ceremony. Some Churches have changed their mind. Did the Vatican chastise the Americans for this? If not, why?
usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/liturgical-resources/triduum/holy-thursday-mandatum.cfm

Or did the Vatican chastise Bishop Jorge Bergoglio in 2005 for this? If not, why?
lifenews.com/2013/03/14/remembering-when-pope-francis-washed-the-feet-of-pregnant-moms/

 

[McCall1981]

You are talking about dogmas, I am talking about a mere custom - the custom of allowing only men at the feet washing ceremony. Some Churches have changed their mind. Did the Vatican chastise the Americans for this? If not, why?
usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/liturgical-resources/triduum/holy-thursday-mandatum.cfm

Or did the Vatican chastise Bishop Jorge Bergoglio in 2005 for this? If not, why?
lifenews.com/2013/03/14/remembering-when-pope-francis-washed-the-feet-of-pregnant-moms/

They don’t chastise because they choose not to, either because they don’t care enough to bother, or becasue they agree with the idea of washing women’s feet. Either way, the solution is to change the rule, don’t leave it intact and violate it.

And yes, dogmas are different than customs, but customs are still binding when they’re part of the Church’s law. It doesn’t matter in the slightest if a church or a person changes their mind or doesn’t like it.

 

[OraLabora]

(This is all assuming that he does indeed wash women’s feet on Thursday, which he probably will, and if he doesn’t then obviously none of this applies.).

Unless he’s changed his mind he will be washing feet in a prison. I don’t know of any mixed-population prisons, so if it is a men’s prison he won’t be washing women’s feet. So y’all can relax, he won’t scandalize anybody!

 

[Moore11]

Unless he’s changed his mind he will be washing feet in a prison. I don’t know of any mixed-population prisons, so if it is a men’s prison he won’t be washing women’s feet. So y’all can relax, he won’t scandalize anybody!

I thought it was a juvenile prison. But I think your point still stands!

 

[McCall1981]

Unless he’s changed his mind he will be washing feet in a prison. I don’t know of any mixed-population prisons, so if it is a men’s prison he won’t be washing women’s feet. So y’all can relax, he won’t scandalize anybody!

I thought this at first too, but I’m pretty sure it’s a youth detention center where there are both boys and girls (so I guess we should be saying boys and girls, not men and women). The Vatican also announced the plan of the service where they said around “40 boys and around 10 girls will be involved in the service” and that the Pope will wash the feet of “twelve of them”, which doesn’t answer the question, but leaves it open. They also said, that media won’t be allowed so as to keep the service private/intimate.

news.va/en/news/pope-mass-of-the-lords-supper-to-be-simple-no-live

 

[Ellen_Mary]

I think all you can do is encourage him, without trying to push him. Maybe start with small things like saying a prayer together. I’ve found that people (including me) are very habit driven, so his resistence could be more about his being in the habit of not being engaged in his faith, rather than actually rejecting it. If you make little things like a quick prayer together, the “norm” it’ll probably be easier for him to warm up to bigger things. I’ll pray for you

Thank you I will try to encourage him. He’s not very likely to accept to pray with me yet, but I will keep praying for him to be more open to his faith.

 

[Brendan_64]

And yes, dogmas are different than customs, but customs are still binding when they’re part of the Church’s law. It doesn’t matter in the slightest if a church or a person changes their mind or doesn’t like it.

Rome is at liberty to grant permission (and does so) to individual bishops to allow women to have their feet washed, so there certainly would be no issue with the Pope washing the feet of women as breaking any Church rules.

As for the Church Holy Thursday rubrics on feet washing, there is no specific reference to the Apostles, nor does it specify that 12 people should be chosen, but it does refer to the act as representing Christ’s gesture of service and charity.

Since Christ’s service and charity extends to both men and women then on that basis there would seem to be no issue with a priest washing the feet of women on Holy Thursday, so long as the Bishop has obtained permission from Rome for this to be allowed in his Diocese.

I guess, as the Bishop of Rome, Pope Francis would have to have a conversation with himself, as Pope, to ask for permission to do this

 

[TimothyH]

Washing the feet of the apostles was the fulfillment of the Angel of God touching the lips of the prophet in Isaiah 6.

And I said: "Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!" Then flew one of the seraphim to me, having in his hand a burning coal which he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth, and said: “Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin forgiven.” And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Then I said, “Here am I! Send me.” (Isaiah 6:5-8)

God purified the prophet so that he could authoritatively speak the word of God to the ten disobedient and apostate tribes of Northern Israel.

Peter echo’s the prophets words in Luke 5 when he realizes that he is in the presence of God…

When they had done this, they caught a great number of fish and their nets were tearing. They signaled to their partners in the other boat to come to help them. They came and filled both boats so that they were in danger of sinking. When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at the knees of Jesus and said, "Depart from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man." (Luke 5:6-8)

John references Isaiah’s purification at the washing of the feet…

Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and dry them with the towel around his waist. He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Master, are you going to wash my feet?” Jesus answered and said to him, “What I am doing, you do not understand now, but you will understand later.” Peter said to him, “You will never wash my feet.” Jesus answered him, "Unless I wash you, you will have no inheritance with me." Simon Peter said to him, “Master, then not only my feet, but my hands and head as well.” Jesus said to him, “Whoever has bathed has no need except to have his feet washed, for he is clean all over; so you are clean, but not all.” (John 13:5-10)

The Apostles are purified so that they can authoritatively proclaim the word of God, but Jesus commands them as follows…

If I, therefore, the master and teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash one another’s feet. I have given you a model to follow, so that as I have done for you, you should also do. Amen, amen, I say to you, no slave is greater than his master nor any messenger greater than the one who sent him. If you understand this, blessed are you if you do it. (John 13:14-17)

The Apostles were then to go out and purify others to proclaim the word of God. John’s Gospel is where we learn about the Adovcate, the Spirit of Truth. John’s version of Pentacost, when the Holy Spirit comes upon the disciples, is when Jesus breathes on them in the upper room. Before Petnacost, the disciples were scared, locked in the upper room. After Pentacost they spoke out boldly, not even afraid to die.

The washing of the feet is apostolic, but the Apostles were supposed to go out and do it to others. In some way or another, we are all called to evangelize. We are called to purify ourselves in the confessional, to touch our lips to the coal, to have our feet washed, and then go proclaim the word of God. The Bishops have the fullness of that, but we have a part in that too. We are all messengers.

Who needs their lips touched to the coal from the altar, who needs their feet washed, who needs to be purified more than juveniles in prison?

-Tim-

 

[JReducation]

(This is all assuming that he does indeed wash women’s feet on Thursday, which he probably will, and if he doesn’t then obviously none of this applies.)

Right now, the rule for this rite is that the Priest is not to wash the feet of women. So, for Franics to intentionally and knowingly break this rule, yes that IS a sin, and we absolutely should question it. He has the “legal” ability to do this yes, but not the moral ability to choose to break this rule.

Let me repeat, he has the legal and moral ability to change the rule, but not the moral ability to break the rule. It’s not the washing of the women’s feet that is the sin per se, but it’s the intentional breaking of the rule that is the sin.

And no, if he breaks the rule, that does NOT somehow automatically change the rule becasue of what he did. The rule remains exactly the same until he officially makes a legal change to it.

All he has to do is change the rule to include women and then the problem is solved. As is (again, assuming he washes women’s feet) he would simply be breaking a rule, which is morally wrong in and of itself, and also encourages others to adopt the same attitude in other situations, which compounds the problem.

Since he can easily change the rule, there is no reason to let the rule stand and then actively break it.

Absolutely! In fact I would add that if a Pope knowingly ignored or broke a rule without changing it, he would be causing scandal and making a hard road for those who do follow the rules. And that could most certainly be a sin!

This is not how Church law works. No pope is ever bound by Church laws. Therefore, not pope can break Church laws. The law is deposited by Christ in the heart of the pope. The pope can choose to impose the law on the entire Church, only one of the Churches or only some people. But he is never beneath the law. Therefore, he is never bound by the law.

If there were anyone scandalized it would be because the individual does not understand the relationship between the pope and the law. The pope does not have to change the law in order to do something different. He can bypass it.

A simple example.

On February 27, 2013, Pope Benedict XVI enacted a law that upon the election of a new pope the cardinals WOULD NOT make their pledge of obedience in the Sistine Chapel and they WOULD NOT make it at the inauguration mass. Nor would there be any pledge of obedience at the inauguration mass so as not to interrupt the flow of the mass. The pledge of obedience is to be made in a public ceremony, for the world to see, that takes place outside of mass.

On March 13, 2013, Pope Francis did not change the law, but chose to bypass it. He chose to use the system setup by Pope John Paul II. However, the law that Pope Benedict enacted is in force and unless the Holy Father chooses to change it, it will remain in the books for the future, should the next pope want to make use of it.

Did Pope Francis break the law? No. Why not? Because no pope, no law, no council can bind a reigning pope. This was established by Pope Boniface VIII.