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

  • Thread starter Thread starter godisgood77
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said he didn’t want to enter into a canonical dispute over the matter. He said in a “grand solemn celebration” of the rite, it would make sense to only involve men because during the Last Supper, Christ washed the feet of the 12 apostles, all of whom were male.
Click to expand...
“Here, the rite was for a small, unique community made up also of women,” Lombardi said in an email to The Associated Press. “It was a specific situation in which excluding the girls would have been inopportune in light of the simple aim of communicating a message of love to all in a group that certainly didn’t include refined experts in liturgical rules.”
Click to expand...
washingtonpost.com/world/europe/pope-washes-feet-of-young-detainees--not-all-of-them-catholic--in-holy-thursday-ritual/2013/03/28/39a9d8c4-97cc-11e2-b5b4-b63027b499de_story.html
 
clem456 said:
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.
Click to expand...
For us, material poverty is very literal. The day before we make solemn vows we sign a legal document that says that anything that we own belongs to N. We name someone outside of the community. And we add that any inheritances or other forms of material goods that come to us from an outside source that’s not a donation, also goes to N.

We own very few of our buildings and properties on which we live. Everyday, we’re getting rid of more. Over the centuries, people donated a lot of property to the order. We don’t have use for all of it. It gets sold off and the money is used for other ministries.

I understand your question. The only answer that I can give to that is the chicken and the egg. If I were to pin point it, I would say that we’re first taught to obey absolutely. You can only ask one question. “Is it a sin?” If the answer is “No” you comply, even if it’s the most stupid idea you ever heard.

It is out of that sense of obedience to Christ that Francis hears Christ’s command to leave the material and to follow him. Francis is our teacher. He is the one who mentors us on how to be like Christ. We try to obey the scriptures as he did. It is very clear that the scriptures mention poverty thousands of times in the OT and NT. It’s driven home through stories, poetry, parables, metaphors, but it’s always in there. Israel itself, the Chosen People, were always slaves. They were always poor. They were part of the underdogs of this world.

The difference between Israel and the Franciscan is that Israel moaned and groaned about it. The Franciscan embraces it as being God’s holy will. We complete for the Church what Israel could not do. We teach the Church how to be detached.
_Abyssinia said:
washingtonpost.com/world/europe/pope-washes-feet-of-young-detainees--not-all-of-them-catholic--in-holy-thursday-ritual/2013/03/28/39a9d8c4-97cc-11e2-b5b4-b63027b499de_story.html
Click to expand...
The reasoning here is very Franciscan. The Holy Father did say that he took his name in honor of St. Francis of Assisi. There’s a wonderful story about Francis giving away a missal to be sold for food. The mother of a friar came begging. Francis had no money. He ran to the chapel and brought back the missal. He gave it to the woman and told her to sell it.

The friar priests were very upset with him. His answer was very simple. “We can attend mass at the town parish. She had no other means of eating.”

Franciscan pastoral care is guided by attention to law and prudential judgment. There is always the on-going question, “What would the legislator do in this situation? What is the legal tradition of the Church? How does the Church look at law vs pastoral care?” Based on those answers, you know what to do. You don’t need a judgment from above unless you’re going to make something permanent. Then obviously, you need to ask.

This was the answer that was given to Cardinal O’Malley when he asked the SCDW this question. He was told that it was OK to make the change for pastoral reasons. Is the pope going to change the rubric? Probably not. Is the rubric like the 10 Commandments? No. The rubrics are a different kind of law for a different purpose. When that purpose requires it, use common sense. That’s what I’m understanding from the response that the Congregation for Divine Worship gave to the cardinal.
 
JReducation said:
For us, material poverty is very literal. The day before we make solemn vows we sign a legal document that says that anything that we own belongs to N. We name someone outside of the community. And we add that any inheritances or other forms of material goods that come to us from an outside source that’s not a donation, also goes to N.

We own very few of our buildings and properties on which we live. Everyday, we’re getting rid of more. Over the centuries, people donated a lot of property to the order. We don’t have use for all of it. It gets sold off and the money is used for other ministries.

I understand your question. The only answer that I can give to that is the chicken and the egg. If I were to pin point it, I would say that we’re first taught to obey absolutely. You can only ask one question. “Is it a sin?” If the answer is “No” you comply, even if it’s the most stupid idea you ever heard.

It is out of that sense of obedience to Christ that Francis hears Christ’s command to leave the material and to follow him. Francis is our teacher. He is the one who mentors us on how to be like Christ. We try to obey the scriptures as he did. It is very clear that the scriptures mention poverty thousands of times in the OT and NT. It’s driven home through stories, poetry, parables, metaphors, but it’s always in there. Israel itself, the Chosen People, were always slaves. They were always poor. They were part of the underdogs of this world.

The difference between Israel and the Franciscan is that Israel moaned and groaned about it. The Franciscan embraces it as being God’s holy will. We complete for the Church what Israel could not do. We teach the Church how to be detached.

The reasoning here is very Franciscan. The Holy Father did say that he took his name in honor of St. Francis of Assisi. There’s a wonderful story about Francis giving away a missal to be sold for food. The mother of a friar came begging. Francis had no money. He ran to the chapel and brought back the missal. He gave it to the woman and told her to sell it.

The friar priests were very upset with him. His answer was very simple. “We can attend mass at the town parish. She had no other means of eating.”

Franciscan pastoral care is guided by attention to law and prudential judgment. There is always the on-going question, “What would the legislator do in this situation? What is the legal tradition of the Church? How does the Church look at law vs pastoral care?” Based on those answers, you know what to do. You don’t need a judgment from above unless you’re going to make something permanent. Then obviously, you need to ask.

This was the answer that was given to Cardinal O’Malley when he asked the SCDW this question. He was told that it was OK to make the change for pastoral reasons. Is the pope going to change the rubric? Probably not. Is the rubric like the 10 Commandments? No. The rubrics are a different kind of law for a different purpose. When that purpose requires it, use common sense. That’s what I’m understanding from the response that the Congregation for Divine Worship gave to the cardinal.
Click to expand...
Fratello,

First: thank you for this!

Second: is it true that the Holy Father gave the Eucharist to non-Catholics? And that Pope Emeritus BXVI did also on an occasion? NB: I don’t believe that they did, but I’d like an “official” answer 🙂
 
So when will women’s ordination become official in the Roman Catholic Church?
 
godisgood77 said:
I pretty sure that the precedent was set by Jesus himself…no? Non of the feet he washed belonged to feet of Catholics as we understand the word today.
Click to expand...
Actually, those feet belonged to the first Catholics.
 
Cor_Cordis said:
Ah yes. Different and equal He made them. Some more “equal” than others.😉
Click to expand...
But that’s not my point, it’s your point 😃

Mental exercise. Where does the washing of the feet usually occur? A Church.

Whose feet get washed? Other priests (and deacons)? Is this correct*? I ask because if it is not priests (and deacons) only, then it is already and nearly always not an exact reenactment of the Last Supper, no?

*this is a serious question and I am requesting an answer 🙂
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
But that’s not my point, it’s your point 😃

Mental exercise. Where does the washing of the feet usually occur? A Church.

Whose feet get washed? Other priests (and deacons)? Is this correct*? I ask because if it is not priests (and deacons) only, then it is already and nearly always not an exact reenactment of the Last Supper, no?

*this is a serious question and I am requesting an answer 🙂
Click to expand...
I know this wasn’t directed at me, but I am confused by what you’re driving at here.
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
I ask because if it is not priests (and deacons) only, then it is already and nearly always not an exact reenactment of the Last Supper, no?
Click to expand...
What? There are so many double negatives in that statement that it’s almost beyond comprehension.

Christ only washed the feet of the men. And why? Because they were His chosen Priests. And as such, extraordinary humility was required of them.

To suggest that women do not require such humility, is, in and of itself a prideful boast of their gender.
 
Lucky7 said:
I know this wasn’t directed at me, but I am confused by what you’re driving at here.
Click to expand...
OK, argument on one side is that Papa Francesco broke the rules, because the washing of the feet by our Lord was of the Apostles, all of whom were priests (well, bishops really).

I am asking (I have never been to one that I can recall), if the feet washing at diocese XYZ is always “done on” priests (deacons, too, maybe) only. Sorry for being unclear:o
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
OK, argument on one side is that Papa Francesco broke the rules, because the washing of the feet by our Lord was of the Apostles, all of whom were priests (well, bishops really).

I am asking (I have never been to one that I can recall), if the feet washing at diocese XYZ is always “done on” priests (deacons, too, maybe) only. Sorry for being unclear:o
Click to expand...
I still don’t get your point.
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
OK, argument on one side is that Papa Francesco broke the rules, because the washing of the feet by our Lord was of the Apostles, all of whom were priests (well, bishops really).

I am asking (I have never been to one that I can recall), if the feet washing at diocese XYZ is always “done on” priests (deacons, too, maybe) only. Sorry for being unclear:o
Click to expand...
OK, I gotcha.
 
Christ makes a clear and intended distinction in the passage of The Washing of the Disciples’ Feet and about those whom He chose:
“I am not speaking of all of you.** I know those whom I have chosen.**” - John 13:18
Click to expand...
His choice of men was clearly intentional. Of this, there is no debate.
 
Cor_Cordis said:
I still don’t get your point.
Click to expand...
Sorry. Let’s say that the feet washing at diocese XYZ is “done on” 6 priests, 4 deacons and 2 lay persons.

If this is true (the numbers don’t matter, as long as even 1 lay person has his feet washed), then the annual washing of the feet is already not the same as at the Last Supper. Given that, it means that it is already not an exact reenactment, so the Pope is free to choose whom he wants to have their feet washed.

If this is true, then I see no problem at all with women’s feet being washed.

I do, I must admit, have (at least at first inspection) a bit of a problem with non Catholics being “done”, but if I understand correctly, the Pope can suspend rules of ritual.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top