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

[Cor_Cordis]

Probably not the people Brendan talked about.

There are definately plenty of people confused about those topics, or who don’t know what the Church actually teaches, but only what they read in the secular media. They may be misled by some things the Pope does, but they weren’t clear even when Benedict was the pope. What they need is someone to reach out in charity and patience and teach them.

The people who are aggitating for women’s ordination or sex same marriage or contraception, have been at that for awhile. The Pope washing a young woman’s feet may indeed give them “ammunition” for a brief while, but his words and his other actions aren’t going to support them. He doesn’t support their positions. He is focused on something else entirely.

If his actions make any of those people (even Brendan’s “good” Catholic) look up for a moment and reconsider their own thoughts and actions, he will have the opportunity to teach them more. We pray that the hostile have their hearts softened, the confused come to understanding, and the good become better Christians - saints even!

I suspect the people that Brendan knows are just as split and conflicted as the rest of the Church in the Western world. He should ask them, he might be in for a surprise.

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.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Those men were wretched sinners. Their actions were not right, but none of them taught against the faith and morals of the church! And none of their sinful acts had anything to do with liturgy or the live of the Church, but with the temporal, political power that the Popes at the time had.

The ordinary person in their ordinary parish, even at the time that those men were popes, went about their lives participating in the sacraments and hopefully gaining the grace to reach heaven without being affected by the actions ofthose popes.

If you don’t think their actions had an effect on the Church, then you are dreaming.

And don’t forget, several saints had open disagreements with the papacy. St.Charles Borromeo comes to mind.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Cor, let us both continue to pray, hope, and have faith. I will light a candle to St Michael for you, will you also pray for me?

 

[vames]

If the pope is free to chose whomever by that decree, then why did the Seventeenth Synod of Toledo specify “twelve sub-deacons after his Mass and of thirteen poor men after his dinner”?

And why does The “Caeremoniale episcoporum” specifically direct that the bishop is to wash the feet either of thirteen poor men or of thirteen of his canons.

Why the specifics?

Caeremoniale Episcoporum was revised several times. Here are 3 successive versions - from 1752, 1886 and 1984.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%A6remoniale_Episcoporum
The first two say that the ceremony is performed according to local customs and bishops’ decisions - some prefer to include 13 poor people (defined as “personnes” in French and “personas” in Latin), some prefer to include 13 clerics (“chanoines” - “canonicis”). Both texts note that even where the custom is to include clerics, it is common to include poor people too, because “it shows more humility and charity than the foot-washing of clerics”. The poor also received alms at the ceremony.
The Caeremoniale from 1984 doesn’t specify anything about the number of people who are chosen or that they should be poor people or clerics.

Catholic Encyclopedia says that most of the sovereigns of Europe used also formerly to perform the maundy. Wikipedia says that the first English monarch to be recorded as giving gifts of small silver coins to the poor was John, who in 1213 gave 13 pence to each of 13 poor men at a ceremony in Rochester - the number being symbolic of the Twelve Apostles together with either Jesus or an angel.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Cor, let us both continue to pray, hope, and have faith. I will light a candle to St Michael for you, will you also pray for me?

Absolutely Sally.

It’s funny you should mention St. Michael, I’ve been reciting his prayer all week.

“Coincidences are spiritual puns.” - G.K.Chesterton

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Caeremoniale Episcoporum was revised several times. Here are 3 successive versions - from 1752, 1886 and 1984.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%A6remoniale_Episcoporum
The first two say that the ceremony is performed according to local customs and bishops’ decisions - some prefer to include 13 poor people (defined as “personnes” in French and “personas” in Latin), some prefer to include 13 clerics (“chanoines” - “canonicis”). Both texts note that even where the custom is to include clerics, it is common to include poor people too, because “it shows more humility and charity than the foot-washing of clerics”. The poor also received alms at the ceremony.
The Caeremoniale from 1984 doesn’t specify anything about the number of people who are chosen or that they should be poor people or clerics.

Catholic Encyclopedia says that most of the sovereigns of Europe used also formerly to perform the maundy. Wikipedia says that the first English monarch to be recorded as giving gifts of small silver coins to the poor was John, who in 1213 gave 13 pence to each of 13 poor men at a ceremony in Rochester - the number being symbolic of the Twelve Apostles together with either Jesus or an angel.

Where in all of that specificity… does it specify women?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Food For Thought:

Pope St. Peter I himself was publicly resisted to his face by St. Paul because he endangered the truth of the Gospel.

“But when Cephas [Peter] was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” (Galatians 2:11)

The Fathers of the Church explained that the incident shows us the correctness of resisting wayward ecclesiastics, even popes. The great Scripture commentator Cornelius a Lapide († 1637) wrote as follows:

“Superiors may be admonished by their subordinates in all humility and charity so that truth may be defended: this is the basis (Galatians 2, 11) on which St. Augustine, St. Cyprian, St. Gregory, St. Thomas and many others who are quoted support this opinion. They teach quite unequivocally that St. Peter, although superior in authority to St. Paul, was admonished by him. St. Gregory rightly states that, “Peter remained silent so that, being first in the hierarchy of the Apostles, he might equally be first in humility.” St. Augustine writes, “By showing that superiors admit that they may be rebuked by their subordinates, St. Peter gave posterity an example of saintliness more noteworthy than that given by St. Paul, although the latter showed, nonetheless, that it is possible for subordinates to have the boldness to resist their superiors without fear, when in all charity they speak out in the defence of truth.”“ (Commentary Ad Gal., II, 11.)

So, the Doctor St. Augustine told us that we should “boldly” resist superiors, including the Pope, “without fear”, when we are defending the Faith.

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that the Scripture passage shows that a pope who errs from the Faith must be resisted openly and publicly because of the danger which exists for the Faithful to be corrupted and led into error.

“There being an imminent danger for the Faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was a subject of St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith. And, as the Glossa of St. Augustine puts it (Ad Galatas 2.14), 'St. Peter himself gave the example to those who govern so that if sometimes they stray from the right way, they will not reject a correction as unworthy even if it comes from their subjects.” (Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae, Q. 33, A. 4)

He also commented on it as follows:

“The reprehension was just and useful, and the reason for it was not light:** there was a danger for the preservation of Gospel truth**. …] The way it took place was appropriate, since it was public and manifest. For this reason, St. Paul writes: ‘I spoke to Cephas,’ that is, Peter, ‘before everyone,’ since the simulation practiced by St. Peter was fraught with danger to everyone.” (Super Epistulas S. Pauli, Ad Galatas, 2, 11-14 (Taurini/ Rome: Marietti, 1953), lec. III, nn. 83f.)

That is how a heretical pope and his errors are to be resisted: “boldly”, “without fear”, “publicly” and “before everyone”, because he is a “danger to everyone”. That is the teaching of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.

 

[vames]

Where in all of that specificity… does it specify women?

The first two texts didn’t specify men either. They said “persons” (personnes, personas).
And the Italian text from 1984 says “uomini” - if they wanted to imply “males only” (such as “viri” in Latin) they would have said “maschi”.
Usage of “uomini”:
Gloria a Dio nel più alto dei cieli e sulla terra pace agli uomini, che egli ama = Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

The first two texts didn’t specify men either. They said “persons” (personnes, personas).
And the Italian text from 1984 says “uomini” - if they wanted to imply “males only” (such as “viri” in Latin) they would have said “maschi”.
Usage of “uomini”:
Gloria a Dio nel più alto dei cieli e sulla terra pace agli uomini, che egli ama = Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will.

Ah, but the Gospels clearly indicate that Christ specified his male Apostles. The ones whom He chose.

Why didn’t Christ wash the feet of Mary of Bethany? After all she bathed Christ’s feet with her tears, dried them with her hair (even though it was a social taboo for her to let her hair down) and she anointed His feet with precious oil.

Why would Christ omit her? Or for that matter, why would He omit His own Mother, Our Blessed Lady?

 

[vames]

Why would Christ omit her? Or for that matter, why would He omit His own Mother, Our Blessed Lady?

Jesus didn’t share the bread and wine with Our Blessed Mother or Mary or Martha. But women are allowed to receive the Eucharist.

There is also the Biblical context that can’t be emphasized enough. If the act washing the feet per se were a novelty, the Catholic ceremony on Maundy Thursday could be understood strictly as something linked to the Apostolic - and priestly - mission. No lay people could be invited and the specifications about charity and humility towards the poor from Caeremoniale Episcoporum would be totally absurd. But the custom of washing feet was recorded several times in the OT as 1) an act of hospitality towards guests; 2) performed by servants. And Jesus obviously praised this custom and the charity and humility involved, when he admonished Simon: “Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair”.

Let’s remember this extremely relevant example from 1 Sam. 25:39-41: “And David sent and proposed to Abigail, to take her as his wife. When the servants of David had come to Abigail at Carmel, they spoke to her saying, ‘David sent us to you, to ask you to become his wife.’ Then she arose, bowed her face to the earth, and said, ‘Here is your maidservant,** a servant to wash the feet of the servants of my lord**.’”
And what is the title of a Pope? Servus servorum Dei - the servant of God’s servants.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Jesus didn’t share the bread and wine with Our Blessed Mother or Mary or Martha. But women are allowed to receive the Eucharist.

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

 

[Cor_Cordis]

There is also the Biblical context that can’t be emphasized enough. If the act washing the feet per se were a novelty, the Catholic ceremony on Maundy Thursday could be understood strictly as something linked to the Apostolic - and priestly - mission. No lay people could be invited and the specifications about charity and humility towards the poor from Caeremoniale Episcoporum would be totally absurd. But the custom of washing feet was recorded several times in the OT as 1) an act of hospitality towards guests; 2) performed by servants. And Jesus obviously praised this custom and the charity and humility involved, when he admonished Simon: “Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair”.

Well first of all, the established Biblical context draws a clear distinction and contrast to Christs’ act which was shared only with His Apostles with whom He said at the time of The Washing of The Feet: “I am not speaking of all of you. I know those whom I have chosen.” - John 13:18

Secondly, you have just reemphasized my original point of Mary of Bethany. Why didn’t Our Lord wash her feet as a receptive act of humility as well?

Thirdly, if Jesus wanted this to be an exercise of humility open to all - then why didn’t he use one of the countless occasions when he was in the midst of multitudes? Especially as you pointed out the Biblical context demonstrated that the act was already widespread and commonly known, why would He then limit it to His chosen twelve? Instead He reminds His Apostles after He washes their feet that He has specifically chosen them.

If anything, the entire scriptural context vis-a-vis Christ’s Gospel example clearly demonstrates that this was either an intended sacrament which had strict implications of gender unto itself just as the male clergy, or, it was a non-compulsory ritual with clear gender specifications limited only to the clergy as well.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

One more point, if the Church is going to expand Christ’s specific model in The Washing of The Feet in regards to non-clergy and gender, then why not open it up completely to include the laity washing the feet of the laity?

If the only specifics we are to retain from Christ’s example is the virtue of humility for humility’s sake, then shouldn’t that be a ritual inclusive to the entire body of the Church?

Why not?

And why stop there? Maybe we should expand the model of the Eucharist as well?

Where exactly are the squishy canon and loose interpretive scriptural limits at on this new-age slippery liturgical slope of tolerance?

 

[vames]

Well first of all, the established Biblical context draws a clear distinction and contrast to Christs’ act which was shared only with His Apostles with whom He said at the time of The Washing of The Feet: “I am not speaking of all of you. I know those whom I have chosen.” - John 13:18

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.

Secondly, you have just reemphasized my original point of Mary of Bethany. Why didn’t Our Lord wash her feet as a receptive act of humility as well?

Thirdly, if Jesus wanted this to be an exercise of humility open to all - then why didn’t he use one of the countless occasions when he was in the midst of multitudes? Especially as you pointed out the Biblical context demonstrated that the act was already widespread and commonly known, why would He then limit it to His chosen twelve? Instead He reminds His Apostles after He washes their feet that He has specifically chosen them.

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.

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” 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”.

If anything, the entire scriptural context vis-a-vis Christ’s Gospel example clearly demonstrates that this was either an intended sacrament which had strict implications of gender unto itself just as the male clergy, or, it was a non-compulsory ritual with clear gender specifications limited only to the clergy as well.

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?

the Council of Elvira (A.D. 300) in canon xlviii directs that the feet of those about to be baptized are not to be washed by priests but presumably by clerics or at least lay persons. This practice of washing the feet at baptism was long maintained in Gaul, Milan, and Ireland, but it was not apparently known in Rome or in the East. In Africa the nexus between this ceremony and baptism became so close that there seemed danger of its being mistaken for an integral part of the rite of baptism itself (Augustine, Ep. LV, “Ad Jan.”, n. 33). Hence the washing of the feet was in many places assigned to another day than that on which the baptism took place.

newadvent.org/cathen/15557b.htm

 

[vames]

One more point, if the Church is going to expand Christ’s specific model in The Washing of The Feet in regards to non-clergy and gender, then why not open it up completely to include the laity washing the feet of the laity?

If the only specifics we are to retain from Christ’s example is the virtue of humility for humility’s sake, then shouldn’t that be a ritual inclusive to the entire body of the Church?

Why not?

And why stop there? Maybe we should expand the model of the Eucharist as well?

Where exactly are the squishy canon and loose interpretive scriptural limits at on this new-age slippery liturgical slope of tolerance?

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.

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

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.
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?
usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/liturgical-resources/triduum/holy-thursday-mandatum.cfm
Can you associate Benedict XVI with “a new-age slippery liturgical slope of tolerance”?

 

[Brendan_64]

I suspect the people that Brendan knows are just as split and conflicted as the rest of the Church in the Western world. He should ask them, he might be in for a surprise.

Do not assume to know what I do or do not ask those in my parish, and do not assume to know how they feel. These people are my friends. I would suspect that I know a lot more about what they think and feel than someone, such as yourself, who has never even met one of them.

It is very easy, and convenient, for people who disagree strongly with certain aspects of the Church to then look (usually online) for people who feel likewise, bond together in their disagreement and then take comfort in an erroneous assumption that half the Church worldwide feels like they do.

The Church is not split, at least not in the parishes where I live, worship and work. There may be a few relatively minor differences of opinion on certain issues, but we are **not **split. And one thing I can tell you is that every single Catholic I have met and spoken to about our current Pope is overjoyed with and united behind Pope Francis as our Pope. I really feel he will be an evangelising force and an example to us all. I believe he will really transform and revitalise our Church in a very substantial way.

 

[Brendan_64]

Yeah, and how many of those people differ with the moral doctrines of the Church on: Birth control, masturbation, divorce, same-sex attraction, abortion, or euthanasia?

???

You really have a very dim view of the people of my parish (despite having never met any of them). Perhaps there are a small minority who disagree with Church doctrines of birth control, masturbation (that has always been the case with the Church) but I doubt there would be almost none of them (if any) who believe in abortion or euthanasia. They would certainly be in no doubt about the Church’s position on abortion, euthanasia and same-sex marriage, as our priest(s) regularly make this clear in their homilies.

And there is an error in your statement, which would indicate that your onw viewson a c certain issue may indeed not be in line with Church teaching. Same-sex attraction as such is** not** against the teachings of the Church. A person who is attracted to members of the same sex is not necessarily in a state of sin as a result of this. Homosexual acts (like heterosexual acts outside marriage) are sinful, but the state of being attracted to members of the opposite sex is not in itself sinful. A celibate homosexual is entitled to receive Holy Communion, therefore the state of being attracted to members of the same sex is not in itself a mortal sin.

The teachings of the Church are the teachings of the Church. It is just as wrong to take a more conservative line on our Church’s teachings as it is to take a more liberal line on the Church’s teachings. The Church teaches and we follow. We may have individual discussions about it along the way, but we put our own views behind us and faithfully follow the Church through the leadership of our Pope.

 

[Brendan_64]

His not bound by Church Law? Really?

So if he declared that Christ was not God - does that make it legal and true?

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.

Now I must leave you and go to worship with my united parishioners.

Happy Easter Cor Cordis.

 

[JReducation]

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

I don’t know if Pope Francis has done it. Pope Benedict did it quite often and at very public masses. I remember seeing him give Holy Communion to Brother Roger of Taize, a Lutheran who was a close friend of Pope John Paul. Brother attended the funeral. Brother was a well known personality. He was also a very holy man. Pope Benedict gave him Holy Communion. It was on international TV. He also gave it to Tony Blair before he was received into the Church.

I’m not throwing Pope Benedict under the bus. The pope can give Holy Communion to anyone. There is no dogma on this. In the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Pope John Paul said that if a non-Catholic Christian asks for Holy Communion and they are properly disposed, the bishop can grant the request. This should be very rare. Pope Benedict certainly did not do this frequently.

 

[MJC2013]

What beautiful act.

As usual, the media does not know how to accurately discuss the Mass. It took me a minute to figure out what they were talking about, lol.

I agree it is a beautiful act. Pope Francis has made me proud to be a Catholic again, through his promise of reform, through his refusal to inhabit the luxury penthouse suite on the top of the Vatican, through this act of foot-washing of young lost criminals. Francis seems to understand that the Church has to change, to become as he says ‘the poor church for the world’s poor’.

If this reform is real, he will begin divesting the Church of much of its real estate empire, and will use the profits to open orphanages and free Catholic schools all over the globe. A rich church is an abomination to Jesus Christ. Perhaps we need the Jesuits to take back the Church and take it back to its real roots, away from its truce with the WORLD and with the powers that be. The Catholic Church needs to begin to provide the leadership that the materialists and the greedy and the violent and the exploiters which make up today’s political leadership is NOT providing.

If Christ were to return today and view the Catholic Church and many Christian religions (Mormons also) and be informed that they were rich beyond belief, what would Jesus say? He would do what Francis SHOULD do: throw the moneychangers (the ‘entrepeneur’ priests, the bankers, and the lovers of pleasure and luxury) out of the temple, out of the Vatican. He would also throw the child-abusers out of the temple.

The Catholic Church needs such reform. It needs a true vision, to make it no longer irrelevant. These tired arguments over contraception and homosexuality and female priests are the illusions of politics: right against left, Republicans against Democrats. Jesus lived with sinners and the poor. The Church needs to come down again, get small again, look to fit thorugh the eye in the needle.

If the Church does not reform, and Jesus returns, Jesus will turn his back on the Church. And the status-quo Church, defending its materialism and its pragmatism and its ‘realistic view of the world’ will kill him again, like they did the last time.