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

[Cor_Cordis]

Why did Francis ‘choose’ poor criminals, men and women prisoners, Christian and Muslim prisoners, instead of the rich, happy priests in the Vatican? Because he is stating, through his actions, that the church has failed those lost souls in prison. The Church has been so concerened with making money and ruling the WORLD OF FINANCE that it has lost its way.

This is not just empathetic symbolism. Francis is a Jesuit. Those who voted for him want a revolution in the Vatican – and want the moneychangers thrown out of the temple.

God protect him.

Francis is warning the Vatican that things are going to change.

Ah, then Francis is going to open up this act of humility for all of those evil rich money changers in the laity as well - no? So when will the laity be allowed to wash the feet of other laity?

And those who voted for him want “revolution”? Really? Does that mean that the last two popes contributed to the Church’s problems?

So in your estimation Francis is there to throw out those evil rich money changers and welcome in jihadist Islam? Do tell?

BTW, the Jesuits have had a reputation for scandal and apostasy in the last 50 years, including the introduction of the Marxist influenced Liberation Theology in south and central America, surely you’re not hoping Francis is following this lead - are you?

I pray not.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Cor cordis,

I’m sure I haven’t read all of your posts, but have you commented on the inclusion of a non-Catholic? It seems to me that you are focused on the inclusion of females. For me, the inclusion of a non-Catholic/non-Faithful is much more significant.

Sure why not? Apparently everyone is “clean” enough - no?

Why have any restrictions?

When will the laity wash the feet of the laity?

 

[Lucky7]

Sure why not? Apparently everyone is “clean” enough - no?

Why have any restrictions?

When will the laity wash the feet of the laity?

I would not be surprised if that happened one day especially with the shortage of priests.

Also, look at my signature. It is a quote from that reading. It struck me on Holy Thursday that I should pray on it. Is it possible that we, as a Church, even now (“later”), are understanding what He was doing?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

The first great sin committed by the Catholic Church was the attempt to diminish the role of women in spirituality. God’s creation needs both men and women. The Catholic Church today is out of balance because of its casting-out of the Female Principle. It is dry and intellectual and rigid; and it is in desperate need of the mystical truth that the Female Principle can bring to it.

Of course, the Male Principle is afraid of the Female Principle. The Male Principle has been demeaning and torturing and repressing the Female Principle for centuries.

There can be no Heaven on Earth until the Male and the Female Principles are reunited in Holy and Mystical Marriage.

What?

Which one of Christ’s chosen Twelve were female?

And, by your claim, the Church has been in grave error since the very beginning lo these 2000 years? Wow.

So the gates of Hell DID prevail against it - no?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

I hear what you are saying loud and clear. As much as I am trying to understand some of the things happening in our Church (even before Pope Francis), I also know that the Devil doesn’t just attack me. We all know he tempted Christ Himself. I see much confusion in the Church and I do wonder whether some of the things our current Pope has done will only add to that confusion (I think the main thing being the change in the Feet Washing).

For example, many Catholics seem to think that any religion will get you to Heaven…that there is no need to be Catholic. They believe Vatican II changed what our Faith taught about Catholicism. When our Church leaders attend other religious ceremonies or include other faiths in our ceremonies, I think that adds/will add to that incorrect belief/perception.

Having said that, I do remain hopeful that our current Pope will also be bold in proclaiming the Truths of our Faith loud and clear…the ones that the world doesn’t like (not just the ones everyone “gets” and agrees with such as helping the poor and reaching the “outskirts”…ie. social justice). My hope is that he is laying the groundwork, getting a lot of people to pay attention, and then he will come out with the tough stuff.

We must always have hope. But we must always look to the Divine wisdom of our Tradition to help us along.

Point of fact to remember: when true reform came to the Church over the centuries, it almost always came from the faithful laity upwards. The clergy and the papacy usually caught up later.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

You are taking this too far. This was never understood by the Church to be a sacrament.

Actually it has been debated as such in the Church’s past. I’m not for it.

However, some of the slippery rationale cited for it’s current loosey-goosey liturgical practices can easily be “tolerated” into instituting this as a “sacrement”.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

I would not be surprised if that happened one day especially with the shortage of priests.

Also, look at my signature. It is a quote from that reading. It struck me on Holy Thursday that I should pray on it. Is it possible that we, as a Church, even now (“later”), are understanding what He was doing?

2000 years later? Woah!

Now, there is “late”, and then there is fallibly “late”.

That’s quite a learning curve for a Church that puts Divine emphasis on its Traditions with a capital “T”.

 

[jesuspsr]

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.

Same here where I live.

jesus g

 

[JReducation]

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.

Whoah! Slow down here. There are a number of mistakes here.

First of all, the Church is the depository of everything that makes man the image and likeness of God. Therefore, it is proper that man’s greatest works of art and science reside under the protection of the Church. The Church must protect humanity. Humanity goes beyond the organic.

Yes, we must feed the poor, educate the ignorant, house the homeless and heal the sick. But if we provide all of this and do nothing more, we reduce man to a lower animal. Those are the kinds of things that we do for our pets too. We feed them, educate them, house them, and care for their health.

The wealth of the Church belongs to no individual. It is the amalgamation of our humanity. It points to what makes us superior to the lower animals and what makes us into the image and likeness of God, because we are capable of beauty, knowledge, and compassion.

Ah, Christ’s words beg to differ. You just stated:

Two things here: the stipulation for spiritual cleanliness is stated in the Washing of The Feet. Also, Judas was allowed to participate in this as well as the Eucharist. An exact parallel. The Washing of The Feet was also a reunion of His constant Followers - no?

This sure sounds like sacrament with specific restrictions. No?

This whole rite of the washing of the feet is being looked at completely out of context with the Church. The Church pays special attention to Christ’s humility, to his service and to his command to go out and do likewise. However, the Church also knows that this gesture is not a sacrament.

Therefore, the Church has the authority to change it, delete it, or add to it in any way that she believes will be best for the faithful. The pope is the highest legislator and the supreme liturgist. Therefore, he does not need a dispensation from the rubrics. He is free to bypass anything that is not essentially part of the sacrament.

We’re missing that point. We’re not paying close attention to the power and authority of Peter.

Here is the incongruity. Traditionalism has been clamoring for an authoritative papacy. Now we have a pope who exercises his authority on a number of things. He will do whatever St. Ignatius directs him to do, regardless of what the curia and the laity think. Suddenly, we don’t want him to exercise that much authority. It’s not the authority that we want.

However, we must understand that authority never pleases everyone. To avoid becoming politicized, authority has to operate free of public opinion. The pope exercises his authority and we must simply accept that this is his right.

Be careful what you pray for. We have prayed for an authoritative pope. We just got one. He knows that God wants him to do and he does it.

It was rather interesting, because in his sermon to the kids, he made a reference to the Exercises of St. Ignatius. He asked the kids, “Why have I come to you?” Then we went on to tell them “Because I knew that I had to come.” He pointed to his heart. This is very consistent with the Ignatian method of decision making. We have to keep that in mind. If we take the pope out of religious life, we take him out of context. If we take him out of context, we tie ourselves in knots over things like this.

The context is simple: First – he is the ultimate authority. Second – he is Ignatian and Franciscan. Third – he’s going to use the Exercises to tell him what to do, not our expectations.

The tomb is empty Alleluia – Happy Easter

 

[Lucky7]

2000 years later? Woah!

Now, there is “late”, and then there is fallibly “late”.

That’s quite a learning curve for a Church that puts Divine emphasis on its Traditions with a capital “T”.

Perhpas i am wrong and others can chime in, but this is not Tradiiton with a capital T…sorry.

 

[JReducation]

Perhpas i am wrong and others can chime in, but this is not Tradiiton with a capital T…sorry.

This tradition began with St. Francis of Assisi and the lepers. The friars did this every Holy Thursday. No one else did it. Franciscans were never obliged to use it. Some did and some did not.

It was not until the 20th century that this became an OPTIONAL part of the Holy Thursday mass.

 

[MJE]

I cut n’ paste and print Bro.JR’s words. I share these w/ friends.

 

[agnes_therese]

Here is the incongruity. Traditionalism has been clamoring for an authoritative papacy. Now we have a pope who exercises his authority on a number of things. He will do whatever St. Ignatius directs him to do, regardless of what the curia and the laity think. Suddenly, we don’t want him to exercise that much authority. It’s not the authority that we want.

Be careful what you pray for. We have prayed for an authoritative pope. We just got one. He knows that God wants him to do and he does it.

The tomb is empty Alleluia – Happy Easter

So very true – thank you for summing it up so succinctly, Brother. As you so often do.

He is risen indeed! Alleluia!

 

[Cor_Cordis]

This whole rite of the washing of the feet is being looked at completely out of context with the Church. The Church pays special attention to Christ’s humility, to his service and to his command to go out and do likewise. However, the Church also knows that this gesture is not a sacrament.

Why isn’t it a sacrament?

Therefore, the Church has the authority to change it, delete it, or add to it in any way that she believes will be best for the faithful.

The pope is the highest legislator and the supreme liturgist. Therefore, he does not need a dispensation from the rubrics. He is free to bypass anything that is not essentially part of the sacrament.

Just because he “can” - does that necessarily mean he should?

We’re missing that point. We’re not paying close attention to the power and authority of Peter.

You mean the same Peter whom Paul had to admonish? That Peter?

Here is the incongruity. Traditionalism has been clamoring for an authoritative papacy. Now we have a pope who exercises his authority on a number of things. He will do whatever St. Ignatius directs him to do, regardless of what the curia and the laity think. Suddenly, we don’t want him to exercise that much authority. It’s not the authority that we want.

Wait. What? “Now we have a pope”?

What were the other popes - non-authoritative?

So now St. Ignatius is leading the Church? what happened to St. Peter?

Is this now the Throne of Ignatius?

However, we must understand that authority never pleases everyone. To avoid becoming politicized, authority has to operate free of public opinion. The pope exercises his authority and we must simply accept that this is his right.

To avoid becoming politicized? Didn’t you just single-out and label “Traditionalism”? As in “Traditionalists”? If that is not politicizing in this culture of secularized Zeitgeist when all traditional norms, morals, and values are being radically destroyed, then the word “politicizing” has no real meaning whatsoever.

Be careful what you pray for. We have prayed for an authoritative pope. We just got one. He knows that God wants him to do and he does it.

Who’s been praying for an “authoritative pope”? You?

Again, what were the other pontiffs, non-authoritative squishy chopped liver?

It was rather interesting, because in his sermon to the kids, he made a reference to the Exercises of St. Ignatius. He asked the kids, “Why have I come to you?” Then we went on to tell them “Because I knew that I had to come.” He pointed to his heart. This is very consistent with the Ignatian method of decision making. We have to keep that in mind. If we take the pope out of religious life, we take him out of context. If we take him out of context, we tie ourselves in knots over things like this.

Really? Tell me, did he wash the feet of all those poor souls who were victimized by those prisoners?

The context is simple: First – he is the ultimate authority. Second – he is Ignatian and Franciscan. Third – he’s going to use the Exercises to tell him what to do, not our expectations.

Really? Authority, Ignatian, and Franciscan?

So in other words he’s ruling along the division of specific religious orders instead of leading by the “universality” of the actual derivation of the word “Catholic”.

The tomb is empty Alleluia – Happy Easter

“Father, why hast thou forsaken me?”

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Perhpas i am wrong and others can chime in, but this is not Tradiiton with a capital T…sorry.

Why isn’t it?

This tradition began with St. Francis of Assisi and the lepers. The friars did this every Holy Thursday. No one else did it. Franciscans were never obliged to use it. Some did and some did not.

It was not until the 20th century that this became an OPTIONAL part of the Holy Thursday mass.

What? I thought it was enacted from the very beginning? Augustine even wrote about it in the 5th century.

 

[vames]

Originally posted by Cor Cordis
*Two things here: the stipulation for spiritual cleanliness is stated in the Washing of The Feet. Also, Judas was allowed to participate in this as well as the Eucharist. An exact parallel. The Washing of The Feet was also a reunion of His constant Followers - no?

This sure sounds like sacrament with specific restrictions. No?​

Humility restricted in lesson only to His “constant followers”? What? Well if that is the case, then why isn’t this a restricted sacrament with specific limitations applied to the the souls of those involved? i.e. not mortal sin “and you clean?”​

But wait: What about already being “clean”? Does this mean that the clergy with mortal sin on their soul are not allowed to perform this ritual? Or, do they take on the image of Christ in this rite? If so, doesn’t that further imply that this is indeed a sacrament*

I said “constant followers” regarding the specific gathering at the Last Supper and Jesus’ lesson about their future betrayals. This was an one-off situation: one of you will betray me and I will be put to death - I let you know that I know about that. And it wasn’t any “stipulation for spiritual cleanliness”; otherwise, Jesus would have excluded Judas.

His lesson in charity and humility wasn’t restricted to his constant followers; otherwise, He wouldn’t command them “you should do as I have done for you”. And Christ was the only one without sin. Peter (as well as the others) sinned and repented.

And the command “you should do as I have done for you” says absolutely nothing about laity. Christ never said “and you should do this to many others” as He clearly implied in the Eucharist.

Neither it said anything about clergy. If the meaning wasn’t “you should do this to many others”, how do you explain that the practice didn’t die along with the apostles, who were told “you also should wash one another’s feet”? The most restrictive, elitist interpretation: apostles washing one another’s feet, without anybody else ever being included.

*Ah, but Baptisms were an open affair performed in public, were they not? Were people “chosen” to receive the cleansing waters, or did they voluntarily come on their own accord?

I question the reasoning and the scriptural basis of the authors of Caeremoniale Episcoporum.*

I wasn’t there, but I suppose that when the ritual of feet washing was associated with Baptism, they didn’t chose to do it only for men.
You are free to question the scriptural basis of any such document. Rituals do change; if you read the preface of Caeremoniale Episcoporum from 1983, you’ll see a whole history of changes that encompasses many centuries.

then in essence (and in practice) the laity (especially the advantaged i.e. young, rich, powerful etc) are being denied an opportunity to serve the lowly by washing their feet - no?

My point was strictly about the risks of performing this ritual only as a PR gesture when you are in a position of power. As we have seen, European Medieval monarchs used to perform such rituals for the poor.

*Why isn’t it going to expand it? It already has from its original form in the Gospels?

I thought that you had noticed that the restricted washing of the clergy’s feet was document many centuries before that by Christ in the Gospels. Therefore, introducing the laity was a novelty when it was first introduce.*

Please, re-read the quotes from Catholic Encyclopedia and the texts of Caeremoniale. A “novelty” that was documented in the latter half of the twelfth century?? How come that for so many centuries popes and bishops were so wrong by including lay people and only you are correct?

Are you implying a differing ideology between Benedict and Francis?

On the contrary. But I’ve seen that people who strongly dislike Francis because he dared to wash women’s feet use to idealize Benedict as a defender of Real Tradition. But Benedict didn’t tell American bishops to forbid washing women’s feet. If the inclusion of women was such an abomination, a defender of Real Tradition would have surely reacted.

 

[shelby_sun]

Wow, for those of you arguing this point, I will pray for you because you refuse to be open minded and see the God like gesture Pope Francis made on Holy Thursday. You are ignoring this spirit of Easter and Jesus dying for ALL of us.

It was not a statement on what other popes did or should have done. Pope Francis was doing what he truly felt Jesus would do today in this world. Bro. is correct some people are just simply missing the point. It is doubtful, you they get so worked up over something like this, they will not be very happy with that is to come. Should we stick with tradition even if it means more corruption in the church?

 

[agnes_therese]

What? I thought it was enacted from the very beginning? Augustine even wrote about it in the 5th century.

w

And was not a part of the Mass for centuries, until restored (as optional) in 1955.

Which kind of makes me wonder – why don’t traditionalists consider it just another “innovation?”

 

[JReducation]

The washing of the feet became a regular custom in the Roman Rite in the 20th century. Prior to that time, it was “hit 'n miss” if you’ll pardon the expression. Several saints liked it, Augustine, Francis and Ignatius that I know of. I’m sure others too.

Today, I would say that it’s embedded into the mass, not really part of it. You can take it out.

The issue that is more important is that we’re not focusing on what the Holy Father was trying to do. We’re doing exactly what he condemned at the chrism mass. The Holy Father spoke about focusing on the self rather than going outward. In our culture we call it navel gazing.

One has to be very gentle with oneself and with others when it comes to customs such as this or one will find himself navel gazing, looking too much at his perceptions and not paying attention to the other person’s position.

That’s why it’s so important to take this or any pope within context. He comes to the office with a biography. He’s not going to cease to be who he is. The cardinals elected him, precisely because they thought that his style is what the Holy Spirit wants for the Church at this moment in time.

We’re not giving this man a chance. This thread is tame by comparison. But there are threads out there that want this man’s head on a silver platter. That’s really scary. First, because those threads are surfacing in trad sites. It makes trads sound nutty. I know some very sane trads. It’s not fair to make a whole group of people look bad.

Second, it’s horrible because we have enough loose canons out there who go after pro-abortion doctors in the name of morality. I can just imagine a loose canon getting so wired up by all of this hullabaloo and trying to do something stupid to the pope. We have to remember that not everyone who reads the internet is of sound mind. An overkill of negativity can set some people off.

Third, I’m really concerned about the fact that this is a reflection of rigidity not traditionalism. Every man who comes to the papacy comes with a different agenda and a different style. It’s that simple.

We need to take a step back and think.

 

[JustaServant]

This thread is tame by comparison. But there are threads out there that want this man’s head on a silver platter. That’s really scary. First, because those threads are surfacing in trad sites. It makes trads sound nutty. I know some very sane trads. It’s not fair to make a whole group of people look bad.

Second, it’s horrible because we have enough loose canons out there who go after pro-abortion doctors in the name of morality. I can just imagine a loose canon getting so wired up by all of this hullabaloo and trying to do something stupid to the pope. We have to remember that not everyone who reads the internet is of sound mind. An overkill of negativity can set some people off.

There is no easy way of saying this.
What they are showing themselves to be is completely and seriously insane. If people think I am being harsh, just read the comments on some of these blogs or Fisheaters. They are anti-Catholic. Self-hate.
I pray what you say does not happen, but desparate people can easily get thrown over the edge.
It would not surprise me to learn the FBI or law enforcement monitors those sites.
I know if I were in law enforement, I would.