M
Moore11
Guest
The call to charity should apply to both sides.
:nope::tsktsk:
- Status
:nope::tsktsk:
B
Brendan_64
Guest
I’ve just got back from Maundy Thursday Mass in my own parish. The priest washed a wide range of feet (young and old) tonight, including the feet of a fair few women. The manner in which it was done at our church tonight certainly didn’t come across as those who has their feet washed being representatives of the 12 Apostles, but rather it came across very much as an act of humility and service from a priest towards his congregation.
K
KCCatechist
Guest
Of course not the new way favors a move to a democratic church, towards protestantism, and the abolishing of a clerical priesthood. Is it any wonder we now have to import priests from more traditional countries?
B
Brendan_64
Guest
You do know that the rubrics of the mandatum make no mention at all of the ritual symbolising the 12 apostles?
So these ‘new ways’ are leading the Church towards Protestantism are they? Who exactly are those who are protesting then?
Our Holy Father Pope Francis has tonight washed (and kissed) the feet of men and women, believers and non-believers alike, in a youth prison. Surely you’re not going to argue that the Pope is leading the Church towards Protestantism?
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
My answer to the assertion that our Lord only washed men’s feet (from another thread):
J
JReducation
Guest
Where did you get this idea from?
First of all, if you don’t want a democratic Church, then we have to begin by keeping our mouths shut. For a forum where people are allegedly against a democratic Church, there are too many who feel that they have the right to tell a pope how to celebrate liturgy. Only in a democratic society do the governed dictate to the government.
Secondly, if we want a more clerical church, then we must never again elect a religious as pope. Because when you elect a religious as pope, he’s going to be faithful to his religious charism, if he’s a good religious. I assume that we would not want to elect an unfaithful religious. There is a catch 22 here. A good religious will bring his charism to the papacy and we just have to adjust. An unfaithful religious will act and carry on like other secular popes, but do we want such a religious on the Chair of Peter?
Third, we want to keep the traditional clerical priesthood, then again we have to learn to be quiet and let the clerics take full control and follow their lead. Clericalism that is defined by the laity is not clericalism. It’s democracy. If by a clerical priesthood we mean priests who look at things our way, that’s very Protestant. Only in Protestantism does the pastor work for the congregation.
Fourth, there is no way that we can become Protestant, especially if we celebrate the Liturgy of the Lord’s Supper which recalls the Eucharist and the Sacrament of Holy Orders, both of which are non existent in Protestantism.
I don’t think we need to fear this. We need to learn to live with our Church and to look at things from the point of view of the Holy Father. I believe that there are two points of view here and some people are missing it.
Some people are looking at the Apostles and getting upset, because there are women involved in the ritual.
The Holy Father is standing on the opposite side of the room and he’s looking at Christ. He’s seeing Christ’s diakonia. This is the dimension of this holy night that he wants to stress.
Both are real, but a Jesuit will never address both, because it’s contrary to Ignatian pedegogy. Ignatian pedegogy is very clear. The Jesuit is to pick one aspect of an biblical even and focus on that one. The oneness is in honor of the oneness of God. Then he must use three legs to explain the one aspect in honor of the Trinity.
In an event like this, where there is the Apostolic side and the Diakonia side, a Jesuit would not be allowed to address both. That’s not what St. Ignatius commanded.
I believe that we have to look at things from the side of the Holy Father and see what he’s looking at. We will find that what he’s looking at is not contrary to the faith, nor does it do any harm if one listens to his sermons on the subject.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
B
Brendan_64
Guest
Some of the comments written underneath that article by people (who I assume are Catholics) are quite saddening.
Are we really at a point where some people (who I presume are also Catholics) feel it is OK to vilify our Pope? It really is quite shocking and very saddening. OK, so some people are finding the style of Pope Francis not to their liking and have vented their spleen about it, but enough is enough surely?
Are we really at a point where some people (who I presume are also Catholics) feel it is OK to vilify our Pope? It really is quite shocking and very saddening. OK, so some people are finding the style of Pope Francis not to their liking and have vented their spleen about it, but enough is enough surely?
M
Mary_LA
Guest
Thanks for this Br JR – out here in my parish in the Overberg mountains of South Africa, parishioners wept to see the tenderness and warmth of that intimate ceremony.
J
JReducation
Guest
You’re welcome.
I’m wondering if people are not getting stuck on this issue, because they’re forgetting some important points.
As Jimmy Akins correctly points out, the pope is the highest legislator. He makes laws, changes laws, dispenses from laws and he can bypass laws. Church laws don’t bind him, only divinely revealed laws bind him.
Another point comes from Sacred Scripture. Christ said that Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. This is important. Jesus was an orthodox Jew. He observed all of the laws of Judaism. However, he dispenses with the law on a number of occasions. He can do so, because unbeknownst to the Jews, he is the Law Giver. The pope is the vicar of the Law Giver.
We need to remember that this is not the first time in history that popes have bypassed laws. We’re acting as if this were the biggest and only bypass in Church history. Were it not for a pope bypassing Church Law, the Franciscan family would not be here. Today, there are 1.7 million Franciscan men and women around the world, because Pope Innocent III, against the advice of his cardinals, bypassed a canon that prohibited new rules for religious life. In 1209, Francis of Assisi presents himself before the pope… The pope is moved to approve the Rule of St. Francis, even though there was a canon in place that said that any new religious orders had to adopt one of the existing rules for religious life: Benedict, Augustine, Albert, Bruno, or Basil. However, in 1216 the Order of Preachers is approved with the Rule of St. Augustine, not a rule written by St. Dominic.
When the Jesuits were founded, there were only friars and monks. St. Ignatius did not want his Company to be either. There was no other model. His brethren made the same vows as friars and monks, were established as an order of equal rank with friars and monks and with the same rights as friars and monks, but they are not bound to any of the obligations that go with conventual religious life. St. Ignatius succeeded in securing a bypass from the pope, which is in effect to this day.
Like these, there are more serious examples of pope bypassing laws rather than changing them. They bypassed them for the good of the Church universal or simply for the good of a few people as was the case with St. Ignatius and his Company. We can’t assume that this is an unprecedented move. It’s certainly not as big an issue as approving religious orders in a manner contrary to law. Yet, no one claims that these popes violated any laws, because they didn’t. They were not bound by the law.
Then there is the whole issue of the target population. Most children who end up in prison are there because they have all kinds of problems that contributed to their delinquency. These children will eventually leave prison. What usually happens to them is that they become part of the voiceless members of our society, which often leads them right back to prison for more serious violations of the law. Maybe, just maybe, some lives and souls were saved by this humble gesture of a very loving pope. God always has a plan and we need to get out of his way.
Finally, I’d like to point out that many have expressed disappointment that the current popes are not crown monarchs with tiara, sedia, etc. Yet, look at the reaction when a pope acts as an absolute monarch. A monarch owes no one any explanations. A monarch is always above the law. A monarch’s actions are always unquestioned, even when monarchs have done cruel and evil things to their people. We can say that Pope Francis did what monarchs can do. We didn’t need a tiara for the pope to exercise his sovereign and regal authority.
If we relax, within a year, all of this will seem to be insignificant. There are many more important things that need the Holy Father’s attention.
J
JustaServant
Guest
C
clem456
Guest
I am struck by the meaning of the word “com-passion”, which means to suffer with. It seems to imply that in order to identify with, suffer with, and minister to others, one has to enter into the common condition we share with others.
J
JReducation
Guest
That is certainly the Franciscan “doctrine”, observe the quotation marks. It was a teaching that was adopted by St. Vincent de Paul, St. John Vianney, St. John Neumann, Bl. Teresa of Calcutta and others.
This only one school of thought. There is the Benedictine school, which is different, but no less valid. Compassion means availability to those who suffer. The individual does not necessarily share in the state of the suffering, but he has empathy and reaches out to those who suffer.
We have to look at these terms not from the dictionary definition, but from the different schools of Christian Spirituality. The Spiritual Masters were not very attentive to definitions. They often used terms very differently from the rest of the world.
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
C
clem456
Guest
This afternoon we sang “Were You There” which is sung from the point of view of a participant. It invites others into direct participation in the scene of the crucifixion. This hymn always brings the reality of what is happening right to the fore and brings quite an emotional response.
The Pope seems to bring this same invitation to us by his participation with these people who’s feet he has washed.
The Pope seems to bring this same invitation to us by his participation with these people who’s feet he has washed.
L
Lormar
Guest
Your post reminds me of the time we were told by a priest the origin of the word “mercy”. It comes from two Latin words “miseri” amd “cor” meaning having “a heart for misery”. Isn’t that beautiful?
J
JReducation
Guest
There are really on two schools in the area of poverty. The other schools of spirituality borrow from one or the other. The Franciscan school is the more popular of the two. It is also the more demanding of the two, because the person must live in poverty willingly. If it’s imposed from outside, it’s a sin not a virtue. To be a virtue it must reflect the poverty of Christ on the cross, “who did not deem equality with Christ something to be grasped at. Rather he humbled himself and was obedient unto death, even death on a cross.”This is profound. I will pray over it.
This is a very Franciscan message. One person who exemplified the Franciscan spirit of poverty was Mother Teresa. You reach out to the poor from among them. You challenge the comfortable the comfortable live as if the poor did not exist.
Etymology of words is very interesting. In the are of Spiritual Theology, one wants to be careful to use the right dictionary. There is a dictionary of theology. We want to be careful, because the Masters were did not use language precisely. In other words, they spoke in ambiguities, because what they spoke and wrote came from their experience. This experience often lacked words to describe it or was heavily influenced by the heart. The language of the heart can give the impression of being so ambiguous that it lends itself to many interpretations. However, if one knows the context of the terminology, then things become crystal clear.
Take for example poverty. Francis always told us that we are to be spouses of Lady Poverty. He taught us that Poverty is a proper noun. It is more than a virtue. It is a living spirit the emanates from Christ himself. If I threw these words out there and said no more, most people would be confused. But if I translate it into 21st century language it would go something like this.
To the brother, poverty is like a bride. She is a part him wherever he goes and he must never forget that poverty is part of his being. The brother must think of poverty as it it were a person, not just an frugal way of living. It is to be loved, as we love others. It is to be protected as we protect others. Poverty does not exist in a vacuum. Rather, poverty is part of the person of Christ. Christ could not execute redemption without taking on human nature and suffering death, two things that were beneath the dignity of God. In order to effect redemption the second person of the Trinity, must be poor. It’s part of who he is. We model our poverty on the poverty of Christ, not on the injustices of the world.
St. Francis said all of this in less words, albeit very confusing for contemporary man, if he’s not familiar with the entire context of his teaching and living. This Holy Father seems to have a very good grasp of St. Francis’ theology of poverty and he lives accordingly.
C
clem456
Guest
So the Franciscan idea of living poverty is a direct material participation in it?
When we come across the “sell all your possessions” gospel passage in bible studies etc, it is received as a spiritual directive, not literally, because well, we have a lot, and we have families to support. I have friends that are wealthy, and they worry about this. They are generous, but they don’t know if they can slim themselves down to the size of a pinhead to fit into the Kingdom.
When you are formed Brother, does the material form the spiritual or the other way around? I hope I am asking a coherent question.
When we come across the “sell all your possessions” gospel passage in bible studies etc, it is received as a spiritual directive, not literally, because well, we have a lot, and we have families to support. I have friends that are wealthy, and they worry about this. They are generous, but they don’t know if they can slim themselves down to the size of a pinhead to fit into the Kingdom.
When you are formed Brother, does the material form the spiritual or the other way around? I hope I am asking a coherent question.
J
JustaServant
Guest
I could be wrong, but I think the Greek meaning is “loving kindness”.
- Status