Pope Francis washes feet

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mike30
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m not a “traditionalist” in the traditional sense of the word…heh…but I think I can understnad how they’re feeling. There has been an awful lot of change in a relatively short period of time. In secular life, typically the new guy takes his time in implementing change, etc.
 
YoungTradCath said:
12 is the number of the Apostles. Having women included “among the twelve” at a foot washing ceremony on Holy Thursday is confusing symbolism. It breaks no divine law, but it is confusing symbolism.
Click to expand...
Look, I completely understand that it could be confusing, but, I don’t know, from the reaction of some traditionalists, not just about this, to Pope Francis and his actions thus far it just comes across as though some people are simply intentionally looking for areas of confusion. I don’t know, maybe I’m looking at this all the wrong way, but why not just assume the most logical orthodox position possible? Such as that all Pope Francis meant it as is as a representation of what happened. That is a very logical, understandable, and orthodox position, so why do we need to look for any other possibility? Instead of standing around talking about how confusing it could be, why not just encourage people to understand it as being something that makes sense and is in line with Church teaching? That way you will help end the confusion instead of spending time talking about how worrisome and terrible it is that his actions could cause confusion.

ETA: Sorry, I just realized that this post comes across as though I am accusing you, I am more so just venting about my frustration at some other traditionalists]
 
Cogent argument, that, and I won’t argue against it, but having the number of twelve and including women in it is still confusing symbologically. If the total number was 13, or 11, or any other number but 12, this could be argued even better. But it was 12 at this event.
Click to expand...
For me, and again just for me, that is the most plausible reason for the number 12. We call to mind (not recreate or reenact) the original event…at which it was twelve, albeit, The Twelve, who had their feet washed by Jesus.
 
felsguy said:
For me, and again just for me, that is the most plausible reason for the number 12. We call to mind (not recreate or reenact) the original event…at which it was twelve, albeit, The Twelve, who had their feet washed by Jesus.
Click to expand...
Exactly, why does there need to be any more symbolism behind it than that. 🤷
 
I know the tradition of washing the feet is to wash the feet of men, but is that an actual law of the Church? I am sure Pope Francis had a good reason.

I would think that if this were a violation of some Canon, His Holiness would know about it.

Pope Francis CANNOT allow the ordination of women, because it is against GOD’S LAW. I think this is paranoia from a certain segment of the laity.

Remember… He is the Pope. You should respect him as such.
 
felsguy said:
. …

**Francis’ decision to disregard church law **

Brother JR has pointed out the inaccuracy, nay, the ridiculousness, of this phrase countless times in several other threads here

…
Click to expand...
Such a comment does not seem inaccurate or ridiculous to me. That’s a topic for another thread. Maybe I’ll start one.

Anyway, as far as this event being the proverbial “last straw,” I am sure there are some “traditionalists” who had only one straw left to begin with, or didn’t even have a straw. It’s too bad if this is what causes some to break away–it’s pretty minor.

Dan
 
YoungTradCath said:
Yes, but why give them ammunition?

I’m not saying that was the Pope’s intention, not nearly, but that is the cold hard fact of what has actually happened.
Click to expand...
I totally understand no handing out ammunition.

But I simply can’t agree with the blog interpretation. That would lead you to believe that no dad could do anything his child wasn’t allowed to do. Sure, in charity, my husband and I did refrain from doing somethings we didn’t let our children do - like have ice cream instead of a proper dinner - but we also taught them that rules apply differently to different people.

I would think that sentiment would be comfortable to some one with a traditional mindset - adults can do things children can’t, men can do things women can’t (and vice versa), priests can do things laity can’t, and finally the Pope can do things no one else can.

Going back to ammunition: the secular press misinterprets or twists everything the Church does. When the Pope washed only priests’ feet we were out of touch misogynists. Now that he has washed two teen girls’ feet we are just waiting for the pink chasabules to start ordaining women. Who can win?

The better path (in my opinion) is for the Pope (whoever he is) to do as he sees fit, considering that any Pope would be a learned, prayerful man who will do his best to follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
 
edwest2 said:
My Baloney Detector immediately jumped into the Red Zone but I’ve got the one with the automatic one second cut-off. So now, I won’t have to worry about getting another one.

“final blow” Next week, be on the lookout for the final, final blow, to be followed by the… I think you get the idea.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Ed
Click to expand...
I second that with a classic!

Benedict Face-palm
 
dans0622 said:
Such a comment does not seem inaccurate or ridiculous to me. That’s a topic for another thread. Maybe I’ll start one.

Anyway, as far as this event being the proverbial “last straw,” I am sure there are some “traditionalists” who had only one straw left to begin with, or didn’t even have a straw. It’s too bad if this is what causes some to break away–it’s pretty minor.

Dan
Click to expand...
Dan, I’ll stand by the “inaccurate” label. Perhaps it’s because I"ve spent the last hour and a half reading several days worth of posts on related threads here including volumes that Brother JR, God bless him, has posted about why the pope,any pope, is not bound by such laws that I also said “ridiculous.”

May I suggest that you search out a few of Brother’s recent posts which explain far more eloquently then I ever could why I hold this view.
 
Mrs_Sally said:
I totally understand no handing out ammunition.

But I simply can’t agree with the blog interpretation. That would lead you to believe that no dad could do anything his child wasn’t allowed to do. Sure, in charity, my husband and I did refrain from doing somethings we didn’t let our children do - like have ice cream instead of a proper dinner - but we also taught them that rules apply differently to different people.

I would think that sentiment would be comfortable to some one with a traditional mindset - adults can do things children can’t, men can do things women can’t (and vice versa), priests can do things laity can’t, and finally the Pope can do things no one else can.

Going back to ammunition: the secular press misinterprets or twists everything the Church does. When the Pope washed only priests’ feet we were out of touch misogynists. Now that he has washed two teen girls’ feet we are just waiting for the pink chasabules to start ordaining women. Who can win?

The better path (in my opinion) is for the Pope (whoever he is) to do as he sees fit, considering that any Pope would be a learned, prayerful man who will do his best to follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
Exactly. My parents drank alcohol when we as children were not allowed, stayed up far later than the curfews they set for us, didn’t let us drive or use sharp scissors or knives when we were too young to handle them safely, forbade us sometimes from going out when they certainly were allowed to do so whenever they pleased.

We never resented it, we knew that parents were authorities and didn’t always have to live by the same rules as us. At the same time we knew that there were good reasons for what they told us to do even when they did otherwise for equally good reasons. 🤷
 
Mrs_Sally said:
Going back to ammunition: the secular press misinterprets or twists everything the Church does. When the Pope washed only priests’ feet we were out of touch misogynists. Now that he has washed two teen girls’ feet we are just waiting for the pink chasabules to start ordaining women.
Click to expand...
NO FAIR…, that means we’ll have to wait another 8 months!

😉
 
Sorry…I just don’t thinking the Pope washing two women’s feet is going to equate to women’s ordination. As someone pointed out…it’s not saying that the apostles were women…or that now there must be women priest.

It symbolizes charity and service. But we also must trust in the Holy Spirit. No to women priests has stood the test of time…and there is a reason for it. It will stand the test of more time.
 
YoungTradCath said:
Yes, but why give them ammunition?

I’m not saying that was the Pope’s intention, not nearly, but that is the cold hard fact of what has actually happened.
Click to expand...
I don’t expect the Pope to refrain from doing what he thinks is right, simply because some may misinterpret it. He answers to God, not to the blogosphere, the media, etc.

Come to think of it, so do we.
 
thewanderer said:
Look, I completely understand that it could be confusing, but, I don’t know, from the reaction of some traditionalists, not just about this, to Pope Francis and his actions thus far it just comes across as though some people are simply intentionally looking for areas of confusion. I don’t know, maybe I’m looking at this all the wrong way, but why not just assume the most logical orthodox position possible? Such as that all Pope Francis meant it as is as a representation of what happened. That is a very logical, understandable, and orthodox position, so why do we need to look for any other possibility? Instead of standing around talking about how confusing it could be, why not just encourage people to understand it as being something that makes sense and is in line with Church teaching? That way you will help end the confusion instead of spending time talking about how worrisome and terrible it is that his actions could cause confusion.
Click to expand...
Not wearing a mozzetta is not confusing symbolism, I’m not sure how that, or not wearing red shoes, for example, could be confusing symbolism. Some might not like it, but it’s not confusing.

But washing women’s feet among a group of twelve on Holy Thursday of all days can very easily be confusing symbolism. We can sit around all day and discuss the Pope’s intention, which I would not dare to assume was anything but good, but do the secular media care about the Pope’s good intention?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top