Pope Francis washes feet

[Eufrosnia]

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.

I meant the interpretation was old but the practice and law maybe newer.

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

But the rubric says Men. If it has women, it is contrary to what is said. I feel that you are arguing semantics on this point.

As I said before, I also not arguing that the Pope cannot do whatever he wants. I am only arguing the merits of actually doing so, if anything.

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.

So why are we using different language other than what is from the New Testament? It seemed like the language was good for 2000 years but not now.

Also, I would be happy to say all are God’s creatures. But to say all are God’s children just undermines need for baptism as well. Think about what you would say next to a non believer?

**Believer to Unbeliever: **-You are a child of God. You should enter the Church and be baptized
Unbeliever to Believer: -Why?
Believer to Unbeliever: -Because then God will adopt you as a son or daughter in to the family
Unbeliever to Believer: -Well I thought you said I am already in the family?

 

[Eufrosnia]

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.

What exactly is Southern Europe?

Anyway, it may well be that Southern Europe has questionable practices built in to its culture, whatever that “Southern Europe” maybe.

If you mean Argentina, that is in South America and not in Southern Europe anyway, no?

 

[Eufrosnia]

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.

Hmmm. Yes, 21 seems too old to be called Juvenile.

I
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.

Well that is not so great then. A young woman at that age running away with a bunch of men and having picnics alone in the woods with one is not very appropriate. I am sure they made it clear that it shouldn’t happen in the normative sense at that time as well. Perhaps St. Francis himself made it clear that this sort of thing shouldn’t happen.

 

[otjm]

Yes, it mentions women and the feet of “some of the faithful”, not non-Catholics.

Not to make too fine a point of it, but the apostles were non-Catholic. They were Jews; and it was not until quite some time after the Resurrection that the Church began to see that it was not an exclusively Jewish group - e.g. the question of circumcision, which was in its essence a Jewish issue.

They followed Christ; but if you had the opportunity to (somehow) go back in time to, oh, about 5 years after the Resurrection and ask anyone of the 12 what they saw themselves as, to a person they would say Jewish.

We can quibble quite a bit whether they were “Christian” or “Catholic” right after the Resurrection, but I think you get the point. I will let Scriptural theologians argue as to exactly when the Church was founded. But trying to say that because Christ washed the feet of the apostles, that this therefore means only Catholics, or only Christians, can have their feet washed is an attempt to read into the act something that simply was not there at all.

 

[otjm]

So, is this about Apostles, or isn’t it? I wish this one little morsel would be settled.

I would submit that you have phrased the question incorrectly. I think the question really is: “is this about the Apostles only, or isn’t it?”.

Given the fact that the 12 vir are not, and have not been (since the time the mind of man remembereth not) seminarians about to be ordained, let alone priests about to be ordained bishops, it is historically clear that it is not simply about the apostles, although it should be equally clear that in numbering those to be washed as 12, that it is at least in part about the apostles.

The fact is, we have had tunnel vision to some extent as to what the message of feet washing is about. Tunnel vision does not mean that we were wrong (it is, in fact, something to do with the apostles); but we have been so caught up with that part that we have essentially limited our thinking and understanding of Christ’s message to that. It is a bit wider.

 

[otjm]

I meant the interpretation was old but the practice and law maybe newer.

But the rubric says Men. If it has women, it is contrary to what is said. I feel that you are arguing semantics on this point.

Semantics are critical. I do not mean to argue with you; but I was Jesuit trained and what we heard (ad nauseum) was “Define your terms!”. Failure to do so leads to incorrect conclusions. I am simply trying to be helpful; the rule is “12 men” and while adding women to the group is different, it is not contrary.

As I said before, I also not arguing that the Pope cannot do whatever he wants. I am only arguing the merits of actually doing so, if anything.{/QUOTE] Understood.

So why are we using different language other than what is from the New Testament? It seemed like the language was good for 2000 years but not now.
Eufrosnia;10561193:

Also, I would be happy to say all are God’s creatures. But to say all are God’s children just undermines need for baptism as well. Think about what you would say next to a non believer?

How so? The fact that all are created by God is completely different than Baptism - they are completely different discussions. Not in opposition to each other; simply different topics. “Children of God” is not a defined term in theology. It is a phrase we use to indicate that we are all created by God - and I am old enough to have been taught my faith according to the Baltimore Catechism, and you are the first person I have met who has equated the two issues or seen some sort of equation. that is not to be critica; I think you are trying to split hairs.

**Believer to Unbeliever: **

-You are a child of God. You should enter the Church and be baptized
Unbeliever to Believer: -Why?
Believer to Unbeliever: -Because then God will adopt you as a son or daughter in to the family
Unbeliever to Believer: -Well I thought you said I am already in the family? :shrug:Well, since they are an unbeliever, it is an excellent point to catechize. As I noted, I have never met anyone else who has been trained in the Faith who has confused the two issues.

 

[Mariem2]

What exactly is Southern Europe?

Anyway, it may well be that Southern Europe has questionable practices built in to its culture, whatever that “Southern Europe” maybe.

If you mean Argentina, that is in South America and not in Southern Europe anyway, no?

Southern European usually means the Mediterranean countries: offhand, I can think of Spain, Italy, France, Greece, Portugal, Cyprus and Malta. There’s nothing questionable about the practice of greeting a person with a kiss on either cheek and neither does it have any sexual connotations. I don’t see how kissing a person’s foot (male or female) could be considered remotely sexual in the context of the Holy Thursday ceremony. Are you looking for problems where there aren’t any?

 

[Brendan_64]

What exactly is Southern Europe?

The southern part of Europe as opposed to the northern part. I would have thought that would have been pretty obvious: Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Cyprus, Malta, the South of France etc.

As opposed to Northern Europe: Ireland, Britain, Germany, Holland, Belgium, Austria, Scandanavia, Northern France, Poland etc.

I thought that was as obvious as knowing the difference between the Northern and Southern States of the USA.

 

[JustaServant]

The southern part of Europe as opposed to the northern part. I would have thought that would have been pretty obvious: Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Cyprus, Malta, the South of France etc.

As opposed to Northern Europe:** Ireland**, Britain, Germany, Holland, Belgium, Austria, Scandanavia, Northern France, Poland etc.

I thought that was as obvious as knowing the difference between the Northern and Southern States of the USA.

I’ll let you British speak for yourselves. But never, NEVER, tell an Irishman he’s part of Europe.

 

[Brendan_64]

I’ll let you British speak for yourselves. But never, NEVER, tell an Irishman he’s part of Europe.

Ireland is more pro-European than Britain. Don’t forget that the Irish people voted to ditch their own currency in favour of the Euro.

 

[Lucky7]

Not to make too fine a point of it, but the apostles were non-Catholic. They were Jews; and it was not until quite some time after the Resurrection that the Church began to see that it was not an exclusively Jewish group - e.g. the question of circumcision, which was in its essence a Jewish issue.

They followed Christ; but if you had the opportunity to (somehow) go back in time to, oh, about 5 years after the Resurrection and ask anyone of the 12 what they saw themselves as, to a person they would say Jewish.

We can quibble quite a bit whether they were “Christian” or “Catholic” right after the Resurrection, but I think you get the point. I will let Scriptural theologians argue as to exactly when the Church was founded. But trying to say that because Christ washed the feet of the apostles, that this therefore means only Catholics, or only Christians, can have their feet washed is an attempt to read into the act something that simply was not there at all.

I am not reading into anything…I am making a point based on exactly what the rubrics state in the US since 1987 (?). My point is that in the rubrics, even in the US rubrics, although women are included only those “of the faithful” are included, not those outside of the faithful. The faithful=the baptized. Whether you want to call the apostles Messianic Jews or the first Catholics it doesn’t matter. The point is is that, up until now EVEN in the US, it only included “the faithful”…disciples of Christ/the baptized/specifically Cahtolics. We have never included non-Catholics in this ritual.

 

[SanAgustin]

What exactly is Southern Europe?

Anyway, it may well be that Southern Europe has questionable practices built in to its culture, whatever that “Southern Europe” maybe.

If you mean Argentina, that is in South America and not in Southern Europe anyway, no?

Argentina as all of Latin America culturally derives from Spain (Southern Europe), additionally, Argentina has lots of Italian (Southern Europe) cultural influences and immigrants.

What you offensively allude to “questionable practices” comes from your own personal misunderstanding of other cultures and possibly heavy influences from cultures that frown or overly sexualize what are common displays of affection. That’s why some of my non Hispanic friends would misinterpret me kissing the cheek of a female friend to something else beyond what if was, just a simple salute of a friend.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Lucky7]

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

Someone references this earlier in the thread:

old.usccb.org/liturgy/q&a/general/feet.shtml

 

[CB_Catholic]

Southern European usually means the Mediterranean countries: offhand, I can think of Spain, Italy, France, Greece, Portugal, Cyprus and Malta. There’s nothing questionable about the practice of greeting a person with a kiss on either cheek and neither does it have any sexual connotations. I don’t see how kissing a person’s foot (male or female) could be considered remotely sexual in the context of the Holy Thursday ceremony. Are you looking for problems where there aren’t any?

You might be on to something here. People seem to be making up problems–there is no proof that anything the Pope has done has caused problems. People seem to be looking for potential problems, which in reality do not exist. That is about the worst way to live and an entirely negative approach to life, and is not prudence.

You know, in my day, in the 50’s, we were very “traditional”. And traditionally one would consider it a mark of extreme disrespect to challenge what a Bishop or Pope said or did, or even our priests. Today however, many of those who call themselves “traditionalists” think nothing of doing so. I don’t get it. The Pope is the Pope, he holds the Keys-or so we were taught. Thus he has the ultimate power of binding and loosing, and it is not our job to question his motives or every move, as long as it is not against our faith or morals. If he wants to change a custom or tradition, or establish a new one, he has every right to do so. These things are not dogma or doctrine or revealed truths.

 

[CMatt25]

I don’t understand all the fuss over feet. How does washing women’s feet translate to allowing women to be ordained? This fear of women in power mystifies me, but then again - I’m not Catholic. I’ve never understood the complex hierarchy, and it seemed strange for people who devote themselves to the service of Christ (and take vows of poverty) to be covered in gold, jewels and silks. I have heard the argument that the finery of bishops, cardinals, et al. is the property of the church - not the individual that wears it, but still - shouldn’t resources go toward feeding the poor, healing the sick, comfort the dying, etc.? I like Pope Francis so far. I hope he continues this course of leading by example.

I do believe less resources spent on finery and even more going towards the poor and the sick could help even more of the poor and the sick.

 

[CMatt25]

All this over the washing of feet…
Incredible.

I’ve known in past yrs CAF threads about parish priests washing the feet of women. So when Pope Francis did it, I knew it would be a hot topic.

 

[Corki]

Someone references this earlier in the thread:

old.usccb.org/liturgy/q&a/general/feet.shtml

I am well aware of that web page. It says nothing about any exception being granted by the Vatican. In fact, unless there is something else, it looks like it never went any further than a USCCB committee. The next step would ordinarily be for the USCCB to vote to ask for a US-specific change to the rubric. This statement from the committee was in 1987 and still no action to change the rubric.

 

[john78]

my biggest problem right now is that the 3rd Season of The Walking Dead is over and now i gota wait till bloody October for season 4 ! The governor escapes with 2 goons and no one knows where he went, and when rick an his gang go to woodberry, the gov aint there, so then we go back to the prision with everyone left from woodberry and then bloop that is it ! I mean come on, now we gota wait to see if the gov is gona come back or just disapear into never never land. So now what the heck am i suppose to watch on TV !

GI Joe is on the big screen an im sure that movie is horrible, then Iron Man 3 is coming out an that looks bleh, the new superman movie looks horribly lame, the sequal to Star Trek looks like it could be good, and then ima have to go watch the remake of Evil Dead.

Movies this upcoming year look bleak. An i hate sports so im not watching that .

I also hate the news as it is beyond boring and just the same garbage different day.

And on top of that I ate way too much candy today, it did a number on me but i survived.

 

[john78]

also my mustache is really sweet right now, the thing is getting it even or letting it grow wild , if i let it grow wild i can style it which would be awesome but involve a lot of care an upkeep an i dont know if i wana make that much of a commitment yet to my mustache.

 

[thewanderer]

I’ll let you British speak for yourselves. But never, NEVER, tell an Irishman he’s part of Europe.

Well I’m Irish, and it is just factually correct to say that Ireland is part of Europe. Not only is it part of the continent Europe it is a proud member of the EU. What Irishmen are opposed to is being reffered to as members of the british Isles, not being members of Europe.