Pope Francis washes feet

[Tantum_ergo]

1 Corinthians 13:13, “So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.”

Love is no subservient to doctrine. Love is the core of all doctrine, and if proves not to be then that doctrine should be promptly ditched.

That does not mean however that we ought to condone sin out of some misguided view of love, To do that would not be showing love to our neighbour as it would be condoning a sin that could put his immortal soul in peril.

However, regardless of who our neighbour is, what sex they are, what creed they follow, what sins they may have committed, we are still commanded to love them, unconditionally. That indeed is pure love, unconditional love. I also believe that that is what Pope Francis was doing by washing the feet of a female, Muslim convicted prisoner, acting out of pure unconditional love and sending a message to the rest of us that we should do likewise. That message is far, far more important than any rubric.

Or should the Pope have been mindful to keep to ‘The Law’ rather than use this ritual to spread highlight the most important core Christian value and display this to the world? Rituals are only tools, they are signposts that show the way, they ought to be used to spread the Word and not be preserved in aspic for the sake of ‘tradition.’

A. Love is such a ‘blanket’ term. The actual term of CHARITY in the gospel verse quoted is not the same as the word ‘love’. Charity can seem in fact UNLOVING (it is charity for example to have your child, if you catch him stealing, make restitution, even if the restitution involves him having to face court, or apologize in public,etc. but a lot of people would scream that such actions aree mean and hateful and all that should be done is to let the child know what he did was ‘wrong’).

B. False dichotomy. You ASSUME that the Pope’s actions were CONTRARY to the law (they were NOT) and meant to indicate that this kind of disregard was somehow a teaching tool to show that we should NOT adhere to tradition if we feel that we can do it ‘better’ by jettisoning thet radition. And that is NOT what the Pope did, or meant to imply,

 

[Julia_Mae]

My point is that if there is significance in the washing of 12 pairs of feet, it is because the feet Jesus washed were His disciples. He had many women among His followers, but He did not wash their feet. Why?

I am just catching up, so maybe this has been answered, but there’s no reason to believe Jesus didn’t wash the feet of all disciples present, including women. The only place this is recounted is in the 13th, I think, chapter of Saint John’s gospel and all it says is He washed the feet of the disciples. If there were women there, from the account, we have to assume He would have.

In any case, I’m not about to question the spiritual actions of my Pope.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

But I like the idea of retaliation instead. Muslim leaders could retaliate by washing the feet of five Christians, or praying for five Christians, or something like that. Christians could respond by donating money to poor Muslims in Bangladesh. Muslims could one-up by sending aid to poor Christians in sub-Saharan Africa. Imagine the escalation…!!

Great plan!

 

[josethomas]

Obedience and allegiance to Pope is tradition. The tradition has meaning. But to dislodge meaningful traditions will be counter productive. When we read chapter II of a book we should not forget chapter I. Otherwise the entire efforts will go meaningless.

 

[Brendan_64]

Love is such a ‘blanket’ term.

Let’s not forget Matthew 22:36-40 . The Greatest Commandments were clearly all about love, pure and simple. Unconditional love for God and unconditional love for your neighbour.

And in verse 40 it states, “On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets”.

So absolutely everything about our Faith depends on love, our Lord said as much from his own lips. Love is the greatest of all Christian virtues. This is indeed what Paul meant in 1 Corinthians 13:13, and that is why a great many Bibles (including the RSV which is my own preferred choice) translate the word used by Paul as ‘Love’.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Let’s not forget Matthew 22:36-40 . The Greatest Commandments were clearly all about love, pure and simple. Unconditional love for God and unconditional love for your neighbour.

And in verse 40 it states, “On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets”.

So absolutely everything about our Faith depends on love, our Lord said as much from his own lips. Love is the greatest of all Christian virtues. This is indeed what Paul meant in 1 Corinthians 13:13, and that is why a great many Bibles (including the RSV which is my own preferred choice) translate the word used by Paul as ‘Love’.

And you’re still not answering me.

What is LOVE? Is love being ‘nice’, refusing to correct somebody when he does wrong because, “it would hurt his feelings and so would not be an act of love?”

I am NOT disagreeing that true love (whether you call it charity or love) is indeed the greatest of the virtues, but 9 times out of 10, people do not know what ‘love’ is, as the word’s definition has been perverted and distorted beyond recognition.

At least with ‘gay’, we KNOW the modern definition is perverted.

But even the wise, even the Christian, frequently has a distorted idea of what ‘love’ means today, so in using the word one has to make sure to use qualifiers.

If people didn’t use qualifiers like putting ‘gay’ in quotes or saying, "Gay’ as defined in modern terms’, then pretty soon, nobody would use or understand that ‘gay’ was anything BUT ‘homosexual’. . .

just as most Protestants (not all) today do not believe that PRAYER means anything other than 'speaking to GOD ALONE. (it actually means ‘asking’, and is not limited to God alone.)

So again, I don’t argue that Love is not the most important of the theological virtues. . .but we have to keep giving the correct definition because most people DON’T KNOW IT.

 

[Brendan_64]

And you’re still not answering me.

What is LOVE? Is love being ‘nice’, refusing to correct somebody when he does wrong because, “it would hurt his feelings and so would not be an act of love?”

Have I ever said that Love was simply about being ‘nice’? I haven’t said that, you simply assumed that that is what I meant, although I can’t see why you would assume this.

However to show love we have to reach out to our fellow man, which is (I believe) what Pope Francis was doing and showing us by example. You cannot love your fellow man by not reaching out to him.

 

[einna]

I think the biggest problem today is that everyone wants to have their own opinion of what the Pope is doing. Psychologically, we know that all of this is speculation. We just read our own mindset in to the actions. Then each of us just justify it or get mad at it.

Edited by moderator FOLLOW what they teach. If anything, we should use our attraction that we feel when we see the Pope do X as motivation to LEARN what the Church teaches.

Instead, all we have today mostly are Catholics who want to use the actions to justify their own ends. That is ridiculous. It doesn’t get the Catholic anywhere and it also makes the other faithful Catholics mad. I will go out on a limb here and say that most traditionalist would not be as pissed if non-traditionalist didn’t keep putting so much weight on Papal actions over teachings of the Church and the Pope himself. So far, the Pope has not proclaimed a single official teaching as far as I know. Everything he has actually SAID emphasizes the proper things.

Lets leave it at that without giving our spin.

We are just expressing our opinions which, as long as it doesn’t go against church doctrine is allowed on this site. If you don’t like what people are saying, then maybe you shouldn’t come here and read the post that get you upset.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Have I ever said that Love was simply about being ‘nice’? I haven’t said that, you simply assumed that that is what I meant, although I can’t see why you would assume this.

However to show love we have to reach out to our fellow man, which is (I believe) what Pope Francis was doing and showing us by example. You cannot love your fellow man by not reaching out to him.

no, I did NOT assume that is what you meant, I simply wanted you to clarify what you meant by love. After all, we don’t disagree that the term is used to convey many different and indeed antithetical concepts, correct? That one person’s view of ‘love’ is ‘niceness’ which would directly contradict a Christian concept that it is something that might not appear ‘nice’ at all. . .

And I’m not saying Pope Francis was wrong to give us an example of service. But as with the different and contradictory views of ‘love’, society has several different and contradictory views of SERVICE, Brendan.

Many who identify as Christian would say (and have said) that one of the best SERVICES one can do to people is to provide them with contraception and abortion ‘rights’. As a Christian, would you say that would be a service? I would not say so, but unless I clarify what I mean by service, if I just talked about ‘service to humanity’, quite a few people whose idea of service meant ‘reproductive rights’ would feel I was including THAT under my word of ‘service’. . .

 

[Eufrosnia]

We are just expressing our opinions which, as long as it doesn’t go against church doctrine is allowed on this site. If you don’t like what people are saying, then maybe you shouldn’t come here and read the post that get you upset.

I am not upset. Just pointing out the meaningless nature of it. We should be turning to what the Church teaches. Not what the people in the Church do. When we try to learn from what the Church folk do, we end up projecting our views on to them or worse.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Let’s not forget Matthew 22:36-40 . The Greatest Commandments were clearly all about love, pure and simple. Unconditional love for God and unconditional love for your neighbour.

And in verse 40 it states, “On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets”.

So absolutely everything about our Faith depends on love, our Lord said as much from his own lips. Love is the greatest of all Christian virtues. This is indeed what Paul meant in 1 Corinthians 13:13, and that is why a great many Bibles (including the RSV which is my own preferred choice) translate the word used by Paul as ‘Love’.

Everything depends on love. BUT, we know how to LOVE only if we follow what the Church teaches. The problem here is you insist that love is above Church teaching. That statement does not make sense since then we have no reference to judge what LOVE is.

 

[Mike30]

I think Muslims are very intelligent people and common sense would tell them That Pope Francis was trying to do anything but show this person they were loved. As on this site there will always be some who get upset. To me it is more disturbing that Catholics are getting upset about it. The act was pure love and that should have been the focus, nothing else.

I think you have a very naive view of the Muslim faith and Muslim societal and religious norms. I don’t say that in a bad way and mean no offense, but unless you have lived or worked in a Muslim country, you really would have no idea of what a gesture like this could be interpreted as.

Short example. When I first arrived in Saudi Arabia back in my military days we were told that as Christians, we could not wear crosses, scapulars, holy medals or even have a Bible in our possession. We were not allowed to openly practice any faith except Islam nor to speak about another faith to a Muslim. We were not allowed to speak to a single Muslim woman or have any contact with one at all. Such things are contrary to the rules there and you can get in a lot of trouble if you violate these rules. Muslims tend to hold societal, cultural and religious norms to a much higher degree than we do in the west and will generally accept no violations or criticisms of them. And while this was in Saudi Arabia, similar rules exist in all Muslim controlled areas.

In this case, for an unmarried Muslim to be touched by a man not her husband would not be seen as a loving gesture. At the very best it would be seen as extremely ill advised and that is a stretch. At worst it could be seen as a slap in the face of Muslim societal and religious norms and be close to blasphemous.

No I don’t think that the majority of Muslims perceived the act as one of love and service between faiths. How we as Catholics feel about it is completely irrelevant. It is how the Muslims feel about it that we should be concerned with.

 

[Brendan_64]

Everything depends on love. BUT, we know how to LOVE only if we follow what the Church teaches. The problem here is you insist that love is above Church teaching. That statement does not make sense since then we have no reference to judge what LOVE is.

All I’m doing is quoting what Jesus actually said and what Paul reiterated. If you have an issue with what Jesus said or with what St Paul said then you really do have an issue.

“On these two commandments * depend **all **the law and the prophets”

Do you have an issue with the above statement. Do you think perhaps the word ‘all’ ought to be left out?*

 

[shelby_sun]

No I don’t think that the majority of Muslims perceived the act as one of love and service between faiths. How we as Catholics feel about it is completely irrelevant. It is how the Muslims feel about it that we should be concerned with.

Seeing as the Muslims feel the way they do about Christians, I am not concerned about how they interpret or feel about what they Pope did.

After your experience, don;t you think the Muslims might have been more upset that the girl was referred to as a Muslim by the press, as she was probably seen as an outcast to their faith being in prison in the first place.

There are also many Muslims around the world that are not as hard line as you describe. That was their right in a country that is mostly Muslim. If the Pope has to worry about every single person he might offend, he could never go out and practice his faith and teach us to do the same. That is what he was doing, and as a Jesuit he probably would have rather it not been reported or recorded at all.

 

[Lucky7]

That is what he was doing, and as a Jesuit he probably would have rather it not been reported or recorded at all.

I suspect that this will be an ongoing struggle for him.

 

[Mike30]

No I don’t think that the majority of Muslims perceived the act as one of love and service between faiths. How we as Catholics feel about it is completely irrelevant. It is how the Muslims feel about it that we should be concerned with.

Seeing as the Muslims feel the way they do about Christians, I am not concerned about how they interpret or feel about what they Pope did.

After your experience, don;t you think the Muslims might have been more upset that the girl was referred to as a Muslim by the press, as she was probably seen as an outcast to their faith being in prison in the first place.

There are also many Muslims around the world that are not as hard line as you describe. That was their right in a country that is mostly Muslim. If the Pope has to worry about every single person he might offend, he could never go out and practice his faith and teach us to do the same. That is what he was doing, and as a Jesuit he probably would have rather it not been reported or recorded at all.

I doubt they would see her as an outcast because she was not in prison in a Muslim jail, and they could just as easily think shhe was being persecuted for being a Muslim. That is not an uncommon belief in the Muslim world.

If he had not wanted it reported it would not have been. I believe that he as the Pope would be able to keep stuff like that out of the news at least before it happened.

While true, there are many Muslims who are not hard core fundamentalists, even some of the most progressive would see this as an insult.

You are right, the Pope should not have to worry about what other faiths think of him and his actions. In a perfect world that is. The plain hard cold truth is that we live in a very violent world in which indiscriminate violence is common and good is often overshadowed by evil.

I pray that the Popes actions are seen as benevolent. I really do.

But I am just not that hopeful that they are being seen in that light by everyone.

Just an opinion by someone who has seen a lot of evil.

 

[shelby_sun]

I suspect that this will be an ongoing struggle for him.

From all the Jesuits I have talked to, they say that will be true. They do feel like he is focusing on this is God’s plan for him. I hope people remember that he is not a priest that came up through the ranks of the Vatican; that with his vows of a Jesuit, make him much different than other popes and we can not expect the same things from him. He can only be who God has called him to be, not who we expect him to be. I pray people are patient with him.

 

[Eufrosnia]

All I’m doing is quoting what Jesus actually said and what Paul reiterated. If you have an issue with what Jesus said or with what St Paul said then you really do have an issue.

“On these two commandments * depend **all ***the law and the prophets”

Do you have an issue with the above statement. Do you think perhaps the word ‘all’ ought to be left out?

All I have to say is that you have to understand who has the authority to interpret. The ability to interpret lies not with me nor you. The Church is pretty clear that to LOVE is to will the good of another. The doctrine of the Church is to help you know how to love God and Neighbor and is never contrary. Anyone who feels as such would be considered to have a malformed conscience.

So what you are once again doing is causing a false dichotomy. There is no Church vs. Love. There is Love and there is the Church to tell you WHAT is love and HOW to love. Therefore, there can never be a situation where Love trumps doctrine. That is a nonsensical statement.

 

[triumphguy]

We are like-minded on this. Though I am not really disturbed. We all have our rulebooks to cope with.

So, I contacted my Muslim “son” (exchange program) from Malaysia. He was busy with finals, but he said that the main objection may be that a Muslim person was participating in a Christian service, “as if she were professing a different faith”. He is a teenager, though, and he said he would ask his local imam. I wrote back and said that I would think she could remain faithful to Islam but still allow her feet to be washed.

But I like the idea of retaliation instead. Muslim leaders could retaliate by washing the feet of five Christians, or praying for five Christians, or something like that. Christians could respond by donating money to poor Muslims in Bangladesh. Muslims could one-up by sending aid to poor Christians in sub-Saharan Africa. Imagine the escalation…!!

During the Irish Famine Turkey sent food and aid to Ireland while Britain allowed the Irish to die of starvation.

http://cdncms.todayszaman.com/todayszaman/2012/01/29/ottoman.jpg
Sultan Abdülmecid who sent money and 3 ships full of food.

 

[Elizabeth502]

All I’m doing is quoting what Jesus actually said and what Paul reiterated. If you have an issue with what Jesus said or with what St Paul said then you really do have an issue.

“On these two commandments * depend **all ***the law and the prophets”

You have been corrected on this before. There is no division in the ancient Jewish mindset, of which Jesus emerged and which he reiterated. Love of God and Love of Neighbor, to the Jew, consisted of obedience to the Law. That obedience could be summarized as mutual Love of God + Love of Neighbor, but Law and Love were, and still are, mutual and interdependent.

Jesus did not institute a “new” Law (of Love); rather, he explained and interpreted that Law as an expression of Love of God (covenantal obedience) and Love of Neighbor (covenantal obedience). Charity is always the highest of the three theological virtues, but true charity is not compatible with disobedience to the moral code. Paul’s lyrical and descriptive ode to charity (it could be called that) did not place less importance on Law, but less importance on certain gifts, relative to the highest of these: Charity.

Note that I have absolutely no problem or disagreement with whatever our beloved Holy Father does, nor did on Holy Thursday. He is our Pope. All us Catholics owe him our trust, our loyalty, and our charity. We also frankly owe him, as JR has said repeatedly, an openness and a suspension of predictions and judgments about the future. He will not be made in our own image, but will construct a Papacy of his own choosing and inspiration. It is incumbent on us not to issue proclamations about his intentions of which we have no personal knowledge. It also serves no positive purpose to speculate on the future, and to debate on the basis of rumor or personal agendas.