Pope Francis washes feet

[Eufrosnia]

Your bishop will probably have given blanket permission for his priests to wash the feet of women. Your bishop will probably have been granted permission from Rome to allow this. Rome has been granting permission (fairly routinely) for bishops to allow this, and has been doing so for years (under Pope Benedict). Why feel the need to kick up a fuss over it now?

Oh ok. I guess there is really no point in discussing these things then. It’s like laws are meant to be broken. The ones who break them or seek exemptions for them are the ones who truly follow Christ as well it seems. So I don’t know, I used to be someone who considered Church law as binding and used to want to take a stance against anyone who breaks the law so probably not that much of a follower of Christ.

But now that the Pope himself does not think that is important, I guess its really not my place to go after anything, whether it be liturgical abuse or any other abuse of the law. All of it is probably going to be changed or given permission for anyway

 

[Eufrosnia]

Source? I only know of one Bishop that requested and was granted this exception.

Actually, yes, reading your post, I think I will like to see a source as well. I just accepted his/her claim before because I am a bit upset and honestly a bit confused. It feels like every time I spoke to my priest regarding some matter was needless disturbance of peace.

 

[Corki]

Oh ok. I guess there is really no point in discussing these things then. It’s like laws are meant to be broken. The ones who break them or seek exemptions for them are the ones who truly follow Christ as well it seems. So I don’t know, I used to be someone who considered Church law as binding and used to want to take a stance against anyone who breaks the law.

There is nothing wrong with seeking an exemption or dispensation of a rule for good reason. It happens all the time. For example, every Catholic who marries a non-Catholic does so by exception.

The Pope can certainly change a rubric or liturgical law at his discretion. We have not done a good job as a Church at educating the faithful about when it is appropriate to follow a Pope’s example vs. when one has a duty to follow the rules as written. (Hint: if the rule is written, it’s not up to any of us - including priests or Bishops, to change it without permission)

 

[Eufrosnia]

There is nothing wrong with seeking an exemption or dispensation of a rule for good reason. It happens all the time. For example, every Catholic who marries a non-Catholic does so by exception.

The Pope can certainly change a rubric or liturgical law at his discretion. We have not done a good job as a Church at educating the faithful about when it is appropriate to follow a Pope’s example vs. when one has a duty to follow the rules as written. (Hint: if the rule is written, it’s not up to any of us - including priests or Bishops, to change it without permission)

Thank you for your reply. That gave some clarity.

So if I may ask, would I be right in speaking to the priest at my parish regarding his washing of feet of women still? I mean, can’t he just say “have you seen the Pope and what he did?”

 

[shelby_sun]

Well Jesus had no problem excluding, yes?

I am really a bit tired of this attitude of doing the “what would Jesus do” thing. All I see is people merely projecting and superimposing their own view on to Jesus. If one wants to do what Jesus did, we know what he did so we can follow what he did. He didn’t wash any of the women followers he had. So why would we wash women’s feet?

I think the Pope is better to make that call than you are. I am sorry, but only Christ himself know why he did what he did, the rest of us can only interpret the Bible in our own imperfect ways.

 

[Eufrosnia]

I think the Pope is better to make that call than you are. I am sorry, but only Christ himself know why he did what he did, the rest of us can only interpret the Bible in our own imperfect ways.

Sure. But every person has interpreted it, including Popes and saints of before, as the same thing for ~2000 years. That is probably why we had it in the Church law in the first place.

Then a person comes along and interprets it contrary to the standard and arrives at a contrary conclusion. Regardless of anything, does that not make you suspect the new interpretation? If anything, you can have layers of interpretation that do not contradict but enrich. But to have contradictory interpretations?

Also, I thought Jesus washed the feet of Disciples. Are Muslims considered Disciples of Christ now too?

 

[Corki]

Thank you for your reply. That gave some clarity.

So if I may ask, would I be right in speaking to the priest at my parish regarding his washing of feet of women still? I mean, can’t he just say “have you seen the Pope and what he did?”

You wouldn’t be wrong but you would probably be wasting your time. From personal experience, unfortunately. Once one of these “innovations” takes hold in a parish, it is hard to shake it loose.

 

[Eufrosnia]

You wouldn’t be wrong but you would probably be wasting your time. From personal experience, unfortunately. Once one of these “innovations” takes hold in a parish, it is hard to shake it loose.

You are probably right. Thank you again for your replies. It gave some comfort to me in a way I cannot explain!

 

[shelby_sun]

Sure. But every person has interpreted it, including Popes and saints of before, as the same thing for ~2000 years. That is probably why we had it in the Church law in the first place.

Then a person comes along and interprets it contrary to the standard and arrives at a contrary conclusion. Regardless of anything, does that not make you suspect the new interpretation? If anything, you can have layers of interpretation that do not contradict but enrich. But to have contradictory interpretations?

Also, I thought Jesus washed the feet of Disciples. Are Muslims considered Disciples of Christ now too?

Jesus washed the feet of the few men willing to follow him at the time. It wasn’t like people were lining up back Jesus. Muslims, at least to Pope Francis, are considered children of God and he loves us all equally.

 

[JReducation]

Sigh. I doubt St. Francis kissed the feet of women though at that time… Otherwise I am sure given the time period, we would have heard some ‘not so nice’ things about him, no? If I am upset already about the kissing women’s feet in the 21st century, you can imagine how much people would be at that time where the sensibilities were more prevalent.

Look at it this way. The people of his time were so upset with so many things that Francis did, that this was just another drop in the bucket.

His first crime was material poverty.

His second crime was allowing Clare to join him in the middle of the night alone with his brothers when she ran away from home.

His next crime was having picnics with her in the woods, where people allegedly saw a radiant light in the night sky above. This statement about the light suggests that the picnic was in the evening.

When he was on his death bed, he wanted a certain friend of his to come say goodbye. Her name was Lady Jacoba. When she arrived, the brothers didn’t know what to do. Francis was in the enclosure, too weak to move and women did not enter the cells of male religious. They reported their conflict to Francis, to which he answered, “Brother Jacoba is always welcome.” And Lady Jacoba was the only female wth him and his brothers when he breathed his last breadth.

Given his relationships, I don’t think that people would have even noticed what they considered his eccentricities.

In fact, we believe that he kissed the male and female feet, because in our history, there is no record of not kissing female feet, nor is there any rule against it. The only rule regarding women that we have is “The friars shall not have suspicious intercourse with nuns.” It was only nuns, not other women. The reason was to protect the reputation of the nuns.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Look at it this way. The people of his time were so upset with so many things that Francis did, that this was just another drop in the bucket.

His first crime was material poverty.

His second crime was allowing Clare to join him in the middle of the night alone with his brothers when she ran away from home.

His next crime was having picnics with her in the woods, where people allegedly saw a radiant light in the night sky above. This statement about the light suggests that the picnic was in the evening.

When he was on his death bed, he wanted a certain friend of his to come say goodbye. Her name was Lady Jacoba. When she arrived, the brothers didn’t know what to do. Francis was in the enclosure, too weak to move and women did not enter the cells of male religious. They reported their conflict to Francis, to which he answered, “Brother Jacoba is always welcome.” And Lady Jacoba was the only female wth him and his brothers when he breathed his last breadth.

Given his relationships, I don’t think that people would have even noticed what they considered his eccentricities.

In fact, we believe that he kissed the male and female feet, because in our history, there is no record of not kissing female feet, nor is there any rule against it. The only rule regarding women that we have is “The friars shall not have suspicious intercourse with nuns.” It was only nuns, not other women. The reason was to protect the reputation of the nuns.

Well to be fair, even if St. Francis did those things, which I highly doubt since these are probably legends, I don’t think he was made a saint for that.

As for having picnics alone with a woman, well… it too seems like a legend because who saw it then? The “people” must have been there so it couldn’t have been a picnic alone in the woods. If it was indeed a picnic alone in the woods… you tell me if that sounds ok.

Anyway, material poverty is not a similar issue to kissing women’s feet. Material poverty can be surprising in the sense of “is this man insane”. But kissing women’s feet would be more along the lines of “where is the prudence with this man”.

So I don’t think that particular comparison as valid. Most cultures would see kissing of feet on the other hand as not a valid method of interaction from a man to a woman. This is probably why Jesus never washed and kissed feet of women too. Would have looked a bit odd and there certainly would have been some eye rolling.

In the same way, IF St. Francis did it, I would think he would have lost a lot of credibility among the people at that very point. ESPECIALLY among the poor because these are the people who usually adhere to these sort of standards than the rich and elite.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Jesus washed the feet of the few men willing to follow him at the time. It wasn’t like people were lining up back Jesus. Muslims, at least to Pope Francis, are considered children of God and he loves us all equally.

But everyone who is baptized is a child of God and others are not, no? If everyone just by belief is a child of God, what is the point of baptism?

I agree that they may be baptized by desire or some other implicit manner but that is not something the Pope nor I can determine and is between God and the individual at the day of judgement. I always thought as far as the Church knows, unless one is baptized, they cannot be called children of God?

 

[shelby_sun]

Well to be fair, even if St. Francis did those things, which I highly doubt since these are probably legends, I don’t think he was made a saint for that.

As for having picnics alone with a woman, well… it too seems like a legend because who saw it then? The “people” must have been there so it couldn’t have been a picnic alone in the woods. If it was indeed a picnic alone in the woods… you tell me if that sounds ok.

Anyway, material poverty is not a similar issue to kissing women’s feet. Material poverty can be surprising in the sense of “is this man insane”. But kissing women’s feet would be more along the lines of “where is the prudence with this man”.

So I don’t think that particular comparison as valid. Most cultures would see kissing of feet on the other hand as not a valid method of interaction from a man to a woman. This is probably why Jesus never washed and kissed feet of women too. Would have looked a bit odd and there certainly would have been some eye rolling.

In the same way, IF St. Francis did it, I would think he would have lose a lot of credibility among the people at that very point. ESPECIALLY among the poor because these are the people who usually adhere to these sort of standards than the rich and elite.

Your right if Jesus kissed women’s feet there probable would have been eye rolling, but not because Jesus was doing anything wrong but because people’s interpretations would be wrong. It is your opinion that Pope Francis should not be kissing the feet of women. It is my opinion that he knows far better what is appropriate and needed at this time in the world. Things are not as they were 2000 years ago, nor should they be in some cases.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Your right if Jesus kissed women’s feet there probable would have been eye rolling, but not because Jesus was doing anything wrong but because people’s interpretations would be wrong. It is your opinion that Pope Francis should not be kissing the feet of women. It is my opinion that he knows far better what is appropriate and needed at this time in the world. Things are not as they were 2000 years ago, nor should they be in some cases.

Um, the reason men don’t kiss women’s feet naturally is due to prudence. The prudence comes from the need to avoid causing temptation for oneself and to others. Also, even if it is possible for that person to handle the temptation or be oblivious that there is even one, it is avoided so as to not lead others to imitate that action and then fall in to sin.

Now if you are of the camp that what causes temptation itself evolves, then you will be right in what you believe. But I am from the camp of thought that such a premise is untenable. Why? Because man has not changed. If anything, we have probably become desensitized to thinking that way but it does not mean that it affects us and does lead us to sin. So to me, what was prudent 2000 years ago would also have to be held today as well unless the foundation is something that can be argued to have changed. In this case, since the foundation hinges on the nature of man, it seems to be untenable to say it has changed.

 

[JReducation]

Well to be fair, even if St. Francis did those things, which I highly doubt since these are probably legends, I don’t think he was made a saint for that.

As for having picnics alone with a woman, well… it too seems like a legend because who saw it then? The “people” must have been there so it couldn’t have been a picnic alone in the woods. If it was indeed a picnic alone in the woods… you tell me if that sounds ok.

Anyway, material poverty is not a similar issue to kissing women’s feet. Material poverty can be surprising in the sense of “is this man insane”. But kissing women’s feet would be more along the lines of “where is the prudence with this man”.

So I don’t think that particular comparison as valid. Most cultures would see kissing of feet on the other hand as not a valid method of interaction from a man to a woman. This is probably why Jesus never washed and kissed feet of women too. Would have looked a bit odd and there certainly would have been some eye rolling.

In the same way, IF St. Francis did it, I would think he would have lost a lot of credibility among the people at that very point. ESPECIALLY among the poor because these are the people who usually adhere to these sort of standards than the rich and elite.

I was trying to address the point that you made about the people during Francis’ times. They already wagged their tongue about him. So kissing female lepers feet was not going to change their opinion of him.

By the way, Clare did runaway with the friars in the middle of the night. This is a historical fact. That’s how the Order of Poor Clares started.

She and Francis did have several picnics in the woods. There is a letter written by Clare asking him to meet her, because she felt that he had abandoned her soul.

There is another mention of it by Thomas of Celano.

Who saw it? Apparently Brother Leo was there. He was Francis’ sidekick. There may have been another brother. They usually went out in twos and threes.

But let’s not get stuck on the picnic and Clare’s running away. Let’s focus on the real issue. You’re suffering for something that is not worth suffering about, because there is nothing inappropriate in this. There is nothing sexual or unchaste about kissing a woman’s foot in front of 150 people and a camera in your face and when you’re 76 and the woman in question is 14 or 15.

 

[Eufrosnia]

I was trying to address the point that you made about the people during Francis’ times. They already wagged their tongue about him. So kissing female lepers feet was not going to change their opinion of him.

By the way, Clare did runaway with the friars in the middle of the night. This is a historical fact. That’s how the Order of Poor Clares started.

She and Francis did have several picnics in the woods. There is a letter written by Clare asking him to meet her, because she felt that he had abandoned her soul.

There is another mention of it by Thomas of Celano.

Who saw it? Apparently Brother Leo was there. He was Francis’ sidekick. There may have been another brother. They usually went out in twos and threes.

But let’s not get stuck on the picnic and Clare’s running away. Let’s focus on the real issue. You’re suffering for something that is not worth suffering about, because there is nothing inappropriate in this. There is nothing sexual or unchaste about kissing a woman’s foot in front of 150 people and a camera in your face and when you’re 76 and the woman in question is 14 or 15.

OH. Why didn’t you say they were 14 or 15? That at least changes things a bit. Those would be like children and yes, nothing wrong with that. I was thinking the Pope kissed like 20 year old’s.

How old was St. Clare at the time of these picnics and running away Brother, if I may ask?

 

[JReducation]

OH. Why didn’t you say they were 14 or 15? That at least changes things a bit. Those would be like children and yes, nothing wrong with that. I was thinking the Pope kissed like 20 year old’s.

I didn’t see the faces, because they only gave you the shot of the pope and the foot. But the center is a juvenile detention center. One news reporter said that it goes up to age 21, but that doesn’t sound right to me. In most countries a 21 year old is not a juvenile.

How old was St. Clare at the time of these picnics and running away Brother, if I may ask?

She was 18 when she ran away from home. The meetings in the wood would have taken palce between the time she was 18 and the time she was 21-22. He died in her 3rd or 4th year in the order.

 

[Brendan_64]

The juvenile detention centre the Pope visited housed prisoners aged 14 to 21.

I’m not sure how old the prisoners whose feet he washed and kissed were, but as far as I’m concerned that isn’t relevant. There clearly was nothing that could be considered remotely sexual in what he did.

In Southern Europe it is common for people to greet each other with kisses on the cheek anyway. Southern Europeans have far less hang-ups about physical contact than Northern Europeans and North Americans do anyway.

 

[shelby_sun]

But everyone who is baptized is a child of God and others are not, no? If everyone just by belief is a child of God, what is the point of baptism?

I agree that they may be baptized by desire or some other implicit manner but that is not something the Pope nor I can determine and is between God and the individual at the day of judgement. I always thought as far as the Church knows, unless one is baptized, they cannot be called children of God?

I have never heard that before. A child is baptized if the parents decide that, if they do not is that the child’s fault?

 

[otjm]

Sure. But every person has interpreted it, including Popes and saints of before, as the same thing for ~2000 years. That is probably why we had it in the Church law in the first place.

I don’t know that there has been any showing of how long the practice has been in the Church on Holy Thursday, bet we will assume for the moment you are correct.

Then a person comes along and interprets it contrary to the standard and arrives at a contrary conclusion. Regardless of anything, does that not make you suspect the new interpretation? If anything, you can have layers of interpretation that do not contradict but enrich. But to have contradictory interpretations?

To begin with, it is not a contrary conclusion nor is it contrary to practice. To be contrary, one would have to not wash anyone’s feet. Contrary means opposite. This is not contrary, it is different. Feet are still washed; the question now is “whose feet?”. If only women were selected to have their feet washed, that possibly could be considered contrary; but certainly this is not the case.

Brother JR has answered this elsewhere far better than I can. The issue of washing feet is that Christ was trying to teach the apostles something; that is to say, this was a specific lesson to those 12. The fact that He washed the apostles feet has been interpreted as meaning that only men’s feet can be washed. That is a questionable assumption. What Christ did at that time was a specific instruction to the apostles, who were soon to be ordained (which occurs after the Resurrection, it would seem, when He breathed on them and said Receive the Holy Spirit… whose sins). However, if one wants to approach a literal interpretation of the washing of the feet, then arguably the only males who should have their feet washed are seminarians. It also has an underlying presumption that the lesson was only meant to go to the apostles, and that there is no lesson beyond that for the rest of us. Again; Brother JR lays it out better than I can.

The Church through time has emphasized the issue that it was the apostles feet, ergo men. However, that also can be a limiting of what Christ may have been trying to teach all of us, and that is the issue of humble service to others. If one looks at the wider teaching, rather than the narrower one, then washing the feet of women suddenly is a non-issue in terms of tradition.

Tradition has tremendous value. Tradition (with a small “t”) also can become such a rote process that we lose sight of the many facets of the original act and begin to have tunnel vision.

The Pope is the law giver in the Church, and for a rubric, he is not bound by laws given by prior Popes, or, for that matter, laws he has promulgated. Keep in mind that Benedict 16 was no slouch in understanding the laws of the Church, and there is a minor exception in the law of who may receive Communion; at John Paul 2’s funeral Mass Benedict gave Communion to a non-Catholic he most certainly knew (and he most certainly knew if this was appropriate).

Also, I thought Jesus washed the feet of Disciples. Are Muslims considered Disciples of Christ now too?

You are confusing to popular but not clearly defined terms. All people are children of God, as God is the ultimate source of life and of each individual’s life. So, Muslims, as well as Buddhists, Shintoists, Presbyterians, LDSers, atheists, agnostics, and everyone else are children of God and worthy of our respect.

That differs from the language of the New Testament where those who are baptized are spoken of as adopted sons and daughters of God.