Rorate Caeli

For the record: "A girl among the 12 inmates whose feet will be washed by the Pope"

Duccio di Buoninsegna
The Washing of the Feet

From La Repubblica:

Pope Francis, who often prefers to call himself "bishop of Rome" for the little ones, those who suffer, and the poor, will celebrate today the rite of the washing of the feet in the juvenile penitentiary of Casal del Marmo. Among the twelve young inmates whose feet he will wash will also be a girl, perhaps two. "In Buenos Aires, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio also admitted girls to the rite. And we proposed today a female presence. In the Vatican, after some resistance, they accepted it," said Father Gaetano Greco, the chaplain of the facility, where the Pontiff will arrive this afternoon.

UPDATE: The ceremony included 10 young men and 2 young women, as confirmed by the Vatican Radio broadcast, reported by several news agencies. (See here.)

101 comments:

Marko Ivančičević said...

Viri selecti deducuntur a ministris ad sedilia loco apto parata.
Tunc sacerdos (deposita, si necesse sit, casula) accedit ad singulos,
eisque fundit aquam super pedes et abstergit, adiuvantibus ministris.

This just keeps getting worse and worse.

poeta said...

I'm not sure what's worse... the chaplain's provocation or the Vatican's acquiescence.

GQ Rep said...

This is only the beginning. More of this kind of thing to come. Unfortunatly.

Thank you, previous Pope!

GQ Rep said...

"Vatican's acquiescence."

MUCH WORSE!

Cure d'eire said...

In going to a youth prison to celebrate Holy Thursday the Pope is setting a postive example Which WE HOPE many will imitiate

In ignoring the instructions of the missal the Holy Father is setting a very negative example which sadly WE KNOW many will imitiate

Marko Ivančičević said...

No dear Cure. No it is not a good example to go to prison to celebrate Holy Thursday Mass. It is Mass at which all other people should be present. It is a Mass for all Catholics and not just for inmates. What if your parish priest went to hospital chapel to celebrate Mass of Lord's Supper? Where would you go? If you went there and all the others too, there wouldn't be room for more than 50 people, and the parish numbers let's say 1500 people...

He is universal bishop. This is a major ceremony. This is for all the faithful. It is one thing to go there on some other occasion and celebrate Mass for them, but Holy Week has always been for all the faithful. I would even be okay if the inmates were invited in st. Peter's or st. John's to sit there cuffed - but the thing is, many more people can be present there. Have you ever seen a traditional bishop or a priest celebrating parish Mass in some barn where 10 people can fit in. Holy Mass, when celebrated by non-monastic priests is for the benefit of all the faithful - that's why the cathedrals were built big - so that they can room large numbers of faithful. If non-monastic, Mass truly is public worship of the Church.
This is, thus, also a bad example which many WILL follow.

J.G.Ratkaj said...

Me thinks the Papacy of His Holiness Francis is the ultimately triumph of Vaticanum II.
The Abdication of Benedict XVI has turned to the fiasco, many have predicted.

Gildas said...

There are only 8 Italians in the prison. Six boys and 2 girls. It seems that both girls will have their feet washed.

Also, it is expected that at least one Muslim youth will have his feet washed by the Pope.

This is the second time I ave tried publishing this comment.

http://www.smtvsanmarino.sm/attualita/2013/03/28/riti-pasquali-papa-lavanda-piedi-carcere

Presbyter said...

Marko, you are quite correct. Pope John XXIII famously visited the "Regina Coeli" prison in Rome dressed in full papal "rig" and with his big smile. But to celebrate a major Liturgy of the Sacred Triduum not before your people to make a "point" is a very bad precedent.

Easter egg No said...

Please , don't wash a woman's feet , 12 apostolic is only man

"Altogether no women deacons are to be ordained."
Council of Orange,Canon 26 (A.D. 441),in NPNF2,XIV:130



sincerely

Donal said...

Welcome to the New New Evangelization. To achieve greater inclusiveness, perhaps pets could be admitted next year...

Jason C. said...

Ah, yet another Destination Mass(TM) at which the peculiarities of local abuse are foisted on the visiting Holy Father, and yet another Holy Father unwilling to say NO.

C. said...

WASHING OF FEET AND HANDS (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Owing to the general use of sandals in Eastern countries the washing of the feet was almost everywhere recognized from the earliest times as a duty of courtesy to be shown to guests (Genesis 18:4, 19:2; Luke 7:44, etc.). The action of Christ after the Last Supper (John 13:1-15) must also have invested it with a deep religious significance, and in fact down to the time of St. Bernard we find ecclesiastical writers, at least occasionally, applying to this ceremony the term Sacramentum in its wider sense, by which they no doubt meant that it possessed the virtue of what we now call a sacramental. Christ's command to wash one another's feet must have been understood from the beginning in a literal sense, for St. Paul (1 Timothy 5:10) implies that a widow to be honoured and consecrated in the Church should be one "having testimony for her good works, if she have received to harbour, if she have washed the saints' feet". This tradition, we may believe, has never been interrupted, though the evidence in the early centuries is scattered and fitful. For example the Council of Elvira (A.D. 300) in canon xlviii directs that the feet of those about to be baptized are not to be washed by priests but presumably by clerics or at least lay persons. This practice of washing the feet at baptism was long maintained in Gaul, Milan, and Ireland, but it was not apparently known in Rome or in the East. In Africa the nexus between this ceremony and baptism became so close that there seemed danger of its being mistaken for an integral part of the rite of baptism itself (Augustine, Ep. LV, "Ad Jan.", n. 33). Hence the washing of the feet was in many places assigned to another day than that on which the baptism took place. In the religious orders the ceremony found favour as a practice of charity and humility. The Rule of St. Benedict directs that it should be performed every Saturday for all the community by him who exercised the office of cook for the week; while it was also enjoined that the abbot and the brethren were to wash the feet of those who were received as guests. The act was a religious one and was to be accompanied by prayers and psalmody, "for in our guests Christ Himself is honoured and receive". The liturgical washing of feet (if we can trust the negative evidence of our early records) seems only to have established itself in East and West at a comparatively late date. In 694 the Seventeenth Synod of Toledo commanded all bishops and priests in a position of superiority under pain of excommunication to wash the feet of those subject to them. The matter is also discussed by Amalarius and other liturgists of the ninth century. Whether the custom of holding this "maundy" (from "Mandatum novum do vobis", the first words of the initial Antiphon) on Maundy Thursday, developed out of the baptismal practice originally attached to that day does not seem quite clear, but it soon became an universal custom in cathedral and collegiate churches. In the latter half of the twelfth century the pope washed the feet of twelve sub-deacons after his Mass and of thirteen poor men after his dinner. The "Caeremoniale episcoporum" directs that the bishop is to wash the feet either of thirteen poor men or of thirteen of his canons. The prelate and his assistants are vested and the Gospel "Ante diem festum paschae" is ceremonially sung with incense and lights at the beginning of the function. Most of the sovereigns of Europe used also formerly to perform the maundy. The custom is still retained at the Austrian and Spanish courts.

(For Washing of Hands - see source)

Anthony said...

Is this the first time a post VII Pope has washed the foot of a female on Holy Thursday? It certainly sets a bad precedent and I'm worried about where this will lead to.

What a Lent we have had! said...

This business of a Novus Ordo service in a prison along with footwashing seems to me to be just a prideful "Now that I am pope I'm going to do it my way because no pope who came before me knew how to do it right. But it wasn't their fault that they weren't humble like me."

I think this is the fruit of trying to mix error with Truth. Reminds me of a woman I met recently who said she was Catholic but doesn't go to Mass and is living in sin with the father of her children but figures she is doing just fine since she prays the rosary every day without fail.

Error and sin cannot co-habitate with truth and grace. How many popes we have had in just one generation who have tried to do just that. If you are over sixty you have seen quite a few. I think St. John Bosco's dream of the two pillars demonstrates that. We always assume the pope(s) in his dream are saintly men. But how about if they were men in error who thought they could re-anchor to the two pillars which they severed ties to when they put in prison the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and devotion to Our Lady?

Anonymous said...

I agree with you Cure d'eire. My pastor has always included 6 women in the Holy Thursday liturgy. He does it because our Bishop does it. For me, and I am a woman, it is very painful to watch.This year I will be attending tonights mass at another parish where I hope they do not do that.

TJPF said...

There seems to be a deafening silence on this issue at another blog...

Anonymous said...

I am a young, recently ordained priest. Tonight, I planned on preaching about the Eucharist and the institution of the priesthood.

How can I speak about such things - the self-offering of Christ, the 12 viri selecti - when our Holy Father is witnessing to something different?

I feel like going up to the congregation and saying, "I don't have any idea what the symbolism of the washing of the feet is. Why don't we just all do what we want."

How hard this is for young priests.

Jon said...

This is but the beginning.

http://americamagazine.org/issue/kasper-proposes-women-deacons

Lautensack said...

It seems that the new Pope's style causes great admiration of the secular media and of the likes of Hans Küng and Cardinal Mahoney, but leaves many young practicising Catholics pretty cold (that does not mean that he does not say some good things in his sermons, and one hopes that he will continue with Pope Benedict's project to clean the curia of the corruption that has come in during the last decades). If this observation is correct, his liturgical innovations my encourage some silver-haired priests to continue with their liturgical abuses until they finally retire, but this may be all that happens. Let's hope so.

John Sobieski said...

Pope Francis has managed to do more damage in 2 weeks than any Pope in the Church's history.

beng said...

It has begun....


SSPX, this is your fault!

If anyone is blaming Benedict XVI for retiring and make way for the new Pontificate (and not get censored by the blog admin here), then I'm blaming SSPX for this whole mess!

They were offered way beyond what +LeFebvre were offered. They had Benedict XVI whom made it his mission to reconciled them, whom freed the Tridentine Mass, whom lifted the excommunication of their four bishops.

Had they reconcile maybe things would be different. Benedict XVI would have more strength to continue his pontificate. A boost in numbers of traditionally minded Catholics would speak louder inside the Church.

But NOOOOOOO...

This is on you SSPX.

Bill Hobbs said...

John Sobieski said...
"Pope Francis has managed to do more damage in 2 weeks than any Pope in the Church's history."

Really? You obviously haven't read much history of the papacy...

Anonymous said...

@ Marko Ivančičević Btw the inmates could have been invited to St. John's without even suffering the humiliation of being handcuffed. The public use of handcuffs is quite a sensitive issue in Italy compared to other countries. Following some abuses in the past, Law n. 492/1992 was introduced and the use of handcuffs is mandatory only when requested by the dangerousness of the subject or the danger of escape. In all other cases, the use of handcuffs or any other means of physical coercion is forbidden.

Always some else's fault said...

Why stop there, beng? Why not accuse Jesus? It is HIS fault for giving the responsibility of handing on the Faith to the popes. After all, if Jesus had not created The Church, instituted the Holy Mass and assigned a Pope to keep it intact, why Benedict would never have had to "retire".

Wah Wah Wah

Lee Lovelock said...

I am always reminded of the time St John Bosco was allowed to take children on a daytrip of Youth Offenders and to have them back, under lock and key by a certain time. Therefore, there was no need for Pope Francis ymb prison to go. I am not going to get into one because I am sufficiently annoyed that nothing said will be nice, but what I shall say is we moten write to The Pope and flood him mid letters because at this moment in time, he is stepping the way of Honorius, in fordealing the Church and actually giving the fiends of the Church boldness to carry on mid their heresies and wrongs. Seriously we moten write to him and flood him mid letters, all nice but theologically and liturgically straight to the point. No more 'Church of Nice' which loses souls and saves them not.

Marko Ivančičević said...

@Anonymus of 28 March, 2013 13:53
Well, if so, this just proves my point.

@C.
Yes. Exactly - and now, since rite is changed, washing of the feet happens in Mass, public worship, and not after Mass which could perhaps be done in private. Those 13 poor men were situated in Pope's home when he washed their feet.

Long-Skirts said...

Anonymous said...

"I am a young, recently ordained priest. Tonight, I planned on preaching about the Eucharist and the institution of the priesthood."

Carry on dear, Father, the Truth (the Catholic Faith) will set you AND your faithful free!! Preach about the institution of the Eucharist and the great Office of the Catholic Priesthood...keep and preserve the Faith for your flock!!

DAMN
THE
TORPEDOES…

Nowhere to kneel
No Tabernacle
No candle red
Just marble crackle

A sepulchre
Deathly white
To help good souls
Despair, take flight

That’s WHAT they want
That is their plan
Then mock, “You dis -
obedient man!”

But in the depths
Of doctrine deep
Sails the Ship
That will not sleep

Full of disobedient
Sheep
Obeying Christ
In priests that keep

The Barque of Peter
On its course
Though her bowels be bricked
By a sinister source

Then damn the torpedoes
Tridentine-lead
Will blast through the block
Full speed ahead

No sepulchre whites
Disobedience, despairs
Only seas of gold Masses
Steered by the Archbishop’s Peres!

John Sobieski said...

"Really? You obviously haven't read much history of the papacy..."

That's sort of a consolation. Which Popes did more damage within the first 2 weeks?

Matt said...

We had been hoping against hope, but NOTHING TO DOUBT any longer.

Uncle Claibourne said...

beng, possibly.... But given our beloved Papa Emeritus's weakness and decline just over the past few weeks, as evidenced in his meeting with Francis, I can't help but wonder if he wouldn't have resigned anyway.

There was so much blame to go around during the SSPX talks. It's a crude analogy, but as I mentioned several months ago, it was almost like "Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country," where disloyal members of both sides literally conspired, each for their own reasons, to keep the hostilities going. I think this was devastating for both Benedict and Bishop Fellay.

On a related note, it was interesting to me when it was recently reported that Msgr. Gaenswein had attended an SSPX seminary for a time. It caused me to wonder if he was one of the mysterious "Roman Contacts" referenced many times by Bishop Fellay during the discussions.

Cyril said...

Being, did you take your mess this morning?

El Cid said...

@Beng: I don't follow your logic. Could SSPX have influenced the Conclave vote? No way. Could a restored SSPX influence the Bergoglio pontificate? Nope. In fact, +Fellay made a shrewd calculation by standing pat. Why? SSPX may become the sanctuary for younger, pious Catholics who feel disaffected by the Bergoglio pontificate.

@Lautensack: regarding the silver-haired priests ... there's one at St. Matthew's Cathedral in DC who can barely conceal his glee at the thought of consigining Papa Ratzinger to the ash heap of history. It's really obnoxious.

D. Harold said...

It's a big laugh. You said "In the Vatican, after some resistance, they accepted it," Who are they to oppose the Surpreme Pontiff- While the cardinals might have elected Him - in actual fact it was the HOLY SPIRIT. Let's hope H. H. Pope Francis makes so maany more changes to get the Church into the 21st Century just to give the pople in your blogg really something to complain about! LOL's

bill bannon said...

There may be things Francis will undergo fraternal correction on... just as Paul "withstood Peter to his face because he was deserving of blame" in Galatians. That is healthy because the last two Popes were flattered like kings and not corrected and that's not healthy....nor is it papacy...it's furtively carnal because it's about Catholic incomes and keeping one's career in some cases.
Both recent Popes together did a 180 degree change on the death penalty unless you think 19th century Popes executed 500 criminals because housing them for life was not discovered yet....try the Roman empire and the Inquisition...both had life sentences. Francis will bring back the Pope-as-correctable from Galatians because we replaced that Holy Spirit idea with king culture and the fawning that goes with it.

Francesco Colafemmina said...

Today the Pope said "esto os pido: sed pastores con «olor a oveja», que eso se note –; en vez de ser pastores en medio al propio rebaño, y pescadores de hombres."

In Italian is the same: "invece" "en vez".

In english the translation is modified: "This I ask you: be shepherds, with the “odour of the sheep”, make it real, as shepherds among your flock, fishers of men."

It should be: "make it real INSTEAD TO BE sheperds among your flock, fishers of men".

This means that the Pope is asking the priests to have the smell of sinners instead to be shepherds and fishers of men!

Barbara said...

My question is what to do and say about a Pontiff who refers to himself in continuation as only the Bishop of Rome?
Everything he has done so far regarding the exterior signs of the Papacy would appear to be dismantling papal authority..

Nonetheless, he is a very authoritarian figure - almost tyrannical and very determined in his demolition of papal authority - I don't understand what's going on - but I don't like it one bit...

To add to my concern most of the non-practising or nominal Catholics that I know really like him and so do the mainstream media - some newspapers are even giving away posters of him...

How must we, serious Catholics, behave faced with such unprecedented things?

I want to obey and love the Holy Father - but after the performance of the past two weeks -I am still unable to connect with him. Sorry to say this, but I see no real love for the Church in the present Pontiff's actions - in my view he is simply doing his own thing. Someone tell me off - someone tell me I am completely wrong - but please, please, convince me that I am wrong...

Yeah - go ahead - blame the SSPX - beng - that sure explains everything - when all else fails,the mess we are in is all THEIR FAULT - right?

Cosmos said...

To me, it seems like there are two separate messages in the washing of the feet: (1) God condescending to man in an incredible act of humility; (2) God teaching his apostles how they were to lead (as a prelude to instituting the priesthood).

The Pope is teaching the world about the former, perhaps at the expense of the latter. But his message is being recieved well.

I agree with the Pope that the Church has become too self-referential. I will battle against the banalization of the liturgy as implemented by the destructive modernists and progressives. But I am not going to scratch and claw when the Pope feels that the world needs to see the clergy joyfully serving again.

The so-called "VII Neo-cons" may miss some very important points, as we all know, but they are not our enemies.

middle-aged priest said...

When the clergy is scandalized, the scandal is truly of immense gravity.

This self-aggrandizement thinly veiled as "humility" is scandalous.

@ the anonymous young, recently ordained priest: You are NOT alone. Whether or not the pope does what is right, you and I must.

Deus videt!

Adfero said...

D. Harold:

The Holy Ghost does not, in any way, elect the pope. What you are saying is heterodox.

The Holy Ghost offers His guidance -- that's it. The 115 fallible men decide whether or not to accept His guidance.

But what you're basically saying is the Holy Ghost moves their mouths and votes "yea" or "nea" for them.

That's absurd.

Robbie said...

Vatican II has won. When the history of Pope Francis is written, historians will note that he finally and completely implemented the full vision of the Council. The papacies of John Paul II and Benedict XVI will be seen as road bumps or pauses along the way.

Like most traditional Catholics, I was concerned when Francis appeared on the loggia. I knew of his past and knew he was not our best friend. Still, I wanted to give him the benefit of doubt. Unfortunately, these last two weeks have shown me there is real cause for concern.

So far, the motto of Francis seems to be "look at me, I'm so humble". There's nothing wrong with that except for the fact he seems to think he must shun most everything that goes with the Papacy. Even John XXIII and Paul VI didn't do that. Choosing not to live in the Vatican apartment is a prime example of that.

I hate to be in this position, but I think the Church is about to go through a revolution. Whether that comes about due to another Vatican Council, I don't know. Regardless, it seems Francis seems ready and willing to remake the Church in his image. That's not what a Pope is supposed to do though.

I thought at the time it was wrong for Benedict to resign and nothing has changed my view. I also thought is was risky to choose a South American Cardinal because of the politics that dominate life in that hemisphere.

I'll continue to pray though.

BD said...

Such sadness, another signs of the dreadful things to come.

However, no Pope in recent times is in a more precarious place than Francis. All Pope Benedict has to do is to publically announce his abdication was made under secret duress. Than in an instant Francis becomes antipope, heretic, and schismatic all rolled into one.

Will it happen? God knows. None of us I think could ever have predicted the unique and terrible situation we are currently in.

God have mercy on us and his Church. Yet in all things God's will be done.

IM said...

Thanks, Longskirts, for yet another very nice poem :)

I wish you all a very graceful Triduum Sacrum and feast of the Resurrection of our Lord and Saviour! May the mysteries of the faith be in your hearts and minds - don't let that be taken away by the silly things that happen during our daily lives.

Also, please pray for a grandfather of a friend of mine who is being buried today.

GB!

Fr. A. said...

D. Herald wrote: "While the cardinals might have elected Him - in actual fact it was the HOLY SPIRIT."

No, this is not what the Catholic teaches. Why then bother praying that the cardinal-electors will follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit? While we pray they will, they also have free will and can elect the man that the Holy Spirit did not desire. Yes, once elected, he is the pope; however, to say that it is therefore the choice of the Holy Spirit is not what we believe as Catholics.

RogerThat said...

Stop complaining here and write your concerns directly to the Vatican, to the Pope.

dmw said...

St. Francis de Sales said (Philothea, III, 23): "It seems to me that we ought to have in great reverence that which our Saviour and Redeemer Jesus Christ said to His disciples, 'Eat such things as are set before you.' To my mind there is more virtue in eating whatever is offered you just as it comes, whether you like it or not, than in always choosing what is worst; for although the latter course may seem more ascetic, the former involves greater submission of will, because by it you give up not merely your taste, but your choice; and it is no slight austerity to hold up one's likings in one's hand, and subject them to all manner of accidents. Furthermore, this kind of mortification makes no show, inconveniences no one, and is admirably adapted to social life. To be always discarding one dish for another, examining everything, suspicious as to everything, making a fuss over every morsel--all this to my mind is contemptible, and implies too much thought of meats and platters."

Can we apply this matter of food to what we see with Pope Francis and his refusal to "put on what is set before him" or "do what liturgical tradition sets before him"?

It seems that in trying to be humble by eschewing the "trappings" of the papacy, he is drawing more attention to himself and not his office.

Marsaili said...

One only has to wonder about what nutty thing the Pope is going to do next. Nearly every day it's something different. I don't blame him, though. I blame the Cardinals who elected him. The Pope is just being who he is. Obviously, this is what the majority of the Cardinals wanted. God help us.

John said...

@ dmw - Fantastic quote. I think you're right on.

@ D. Harold - That is not what the church teaches at all. The Pope is not the Holy Spirit incarnate, as you seem to suggest. He is a man who is even able to directly thwart the Spirit's guidance if he so chooses. (Lord, have mercy.)

Gratias said...

Humble Pope Francis uses his authority without hesitation. Washing the feet of women will get him more approval of the media. Not kneeling after elevation of the host and wine was immediately adopted in my NO parish.

Another sign of humble pride is his wish to remain at the Domus Sanctae Martae hotel rather than move to the Papal Apartments. This will be a security nightmare.

The papacy needs its symbols of authority. Remember the pomp with which they stuck Vatcan II on us?

My great fear is that Pope Francis in his rush to change things might call for a Vatican III Council.

NotSurprised said...

He's a totally processed product of the Hippie Council. Why is this surprising?

Catholic! or nothing! said...

I am so very grateful for the priests who have spoken up here. We fight for the Faith. For us you are the first line of defense when it comes to keeping and promoting the truth of the Catholic Church. Yes, we fight. But we fight better when you lead us.

And now we find that we must defend our priests! Then that we will do!

Know that you are all prayed for and sacrificed for every single day in my home. To the Faithful priest we will give ALL!

And yet... said...

The official Vatican text of the Pope's homily, in the original Italian, reads:

"(...)
questo io vi chiedo: siate pastori con l’ "odore delle pecore", che si senta quello -; invece di essere pastori in mezzo al proprio gregge e pescatori di uomini.
(...)"

Balthasar said...

Interesting that despite all the emphasis on the Bishopric of Rome, on the primary connection with a particular diocese and community, Francis or his aides went out of their way to include non-Italians in a multinational panorama.

Jason C. said...

Cosmos said: To me, it seems like there are two separate messages in the washing of the feet: (1) God condescending to man in an incredible act of humility; (2) God teaching his apostles how they were to lead (as a prelude to instituting the priesthood).

The Pope is teaching the world about the former, perhaps at the expense of the latter. But his message is being recieved well.

I agree with the Pope that the Church has become too self-referential. I will battle against the banalization of the liturgy as implemented by the destructive modernists and progressives. But I am not going to scratch and claw when the Pope feels that the world needs to see the clergy joyfully serving again.

The so-called "VII Neo-cons" may miss some very important points, as we all know, but they are not our enemies.


This deserves to be said again in case anyone's missed it. There is no clear teaching beyond viri selecti as to what the mandatum right actually means. Is it just a show of humility, or is it just a symbol of ordination? Or is it both? No one knows. So what the Holy Father is doing might violate the word choice in a rubric (assuming the rite's done within the Mass)--and, c'mon, it's the Novus Ordo, NO ONE celebrates the O.F. perfectly--he's not acting contrary to the express spirit of the rite: no one knows what this rite means. Until that's clear, don't accuse the Holy Father of some hidden WOMYNPRIESTS OH NOES!1! agenda.

The Holy Father is wading into enemy (i.e., the media) territory and, for now, they are eating it up. While many of these acts offend by-the-book Catholics and can seem imprudent, this is, whether we like it or not, one sure-fire method to regain credibility (an invaluable tool for evangelization). Until that's regained, we'll continue to be portrayed to the world as a bunch of child-molesting, homophobic elites who dress like Roman Senators. If we can shed that image, then we can reach people more easily and our evangelization efforts will be more successful. When that's accomplished, our focus on unvarnished truth, and beauty in liturgy, etc., will not be viewed suspiciously or prejudicially, but approached for what it is.

So Cosmos's point bears returning to: The so-called "neo-cons" share our goals, but they would accomplish them very differently than we would: they're not our enemies.

Paul William said...

This seems reminiscent of the "Altar Girls" controversy that quickly went from a decried liturgical abuse to an approved practice. Back when Archbishop Hunthausen was washing women's feet in Seattle, he was doing so in an explicit act of defiance to Rome - an act which conservative Catholics decried in the pages of the Wanderer and elsewhere. It turns out, Hunthausen wasn't so much wrong as he was ahead of his time.

Gregory said...

TJPF said...

There seems to be a deafening silence on this issue at another blog...

-

Indeed, but it's not the only one. There are certain blogs which have been conspicuously silent these last 10 days or so. Most of them were the ones that railed against RC in the opening 72hrs of the Franciscan papacy when, frankly, anyone with even a late 90s-style web dial-up facility could see the way that things would be headed based not only on Cardinal Bergoglio's past - and easily Googled - record but also the very overt signals he issued (which were intended to be received) from shortly after "Habemus Papam."

I counted only one questionable comment on RC (someone said they would "not obey") but all the rest of the comments were well-founded and quite contextual. But the accusations of "vitriol", "bile", "disloyalty" etc just kept on coming. Thankfully RC stuck to its guns, in true charity.

The silence you're hearing now across the other blogs is a deafening "dink" as the penny has finally dropped.

This is not just a critical moment in the Church, but also in the (typically Traditional) Catholic blogosphere which has had it pretty easy these last eight years as the phenomenon has exploded. Chiefly because the blogs could always count on being in-step with the Pope.

I've always wondered how the distortions of the Council were allowed to flourish like a wildfire in the 60s and 70s. The faux-docility I've witnessed in certain quarters these last few weeks has told me all I needed to know.

Here's hoping that the Trad blogs keep their nerve and stay united and focused. This is no time to either wobble or be complacent (e.g. "I can't see Summorum Pontificum being rolled back" etc - really? Can't you?).

Thankfully we have RC which, beyond dispute these last few weeks, has proven itself to be the go-to safe, measured and sensible haven for all those attached to Tradition.

In the meantime, I've got to go and eat some bitter pie later on, as I try to explain to the friends that I spoke with last Holy Thursday - about why it's only men who "get their feet washed" - as to why Pope Francis doesn't see it quite that way. So, what else do we have to be careful about defending? Y'know just in case His Holiness makes a chump of us.

Dr. Timothy J. Williams said...

It is at times like these that I am reminded of my local Byzantine Pastor's dictum: "There is safety in numbers." He means SMALL numbers. When you are only a few in number, nobody tries to "update" you. They leave you alone.

Elizabeth said...

Good Lord, have mercy. I so very much wanted to see him NOT do something like this.

Dr. Timothy J. Williams said...

I wonder... has the Vatican press office published an official schedule for Francis' upcoming public acts of humility? So far, they all seem to be designed to maximize the media buzz.

sam said...

He's a Jesuit, do I have to say more

John said...

Jason C. said... "When that's accomplished, our focus on unvarnished truth, and beauty in liturgy, etc., will not be viewed suspiciously or prejudicially, but approached for what it is."

Why the false dichotomy? Why do we have to sacrifice truth and beauty for the sake of outreach? Aren't both possible? If they're not, then I have trouble believing this is even Christ's Church at all.

God is truth. God is beauty. If these attributes of God are not permitted to be displayed in all their glory, what is the point of evangelism at all?

God has a man and humbled himself, and died. Then he emptied Hell of its dead, returned in a glorified body, and ascended to the right hand of the Father.

The end of the story is what the Church is and must be. Christ came to exalt man and make us holy, not drag his bride through the proverbial dirt just to please all those who are still dirty themselves.

If we want to evangelize, show people the full glory of the SAINTS they can become.

Lowering the Church to the standard of the broken world is ridiculous, obscene, and unacceptable. We're not here to gain the praise of worldly men. We're here to make men holy.

Drew said...

Humility this...humility that...for the poor...by the poor...we are all poor...etcetera...etcetera.

But where is Pope Francis' humility to follow the Church's proper traditions, ceremonies and decorums? Can it be called selective humility?

Grrrrrr.

SEB said...

I have a quick question. If a priest wanted to say a private mass by himself but didn't know latin, could he use the EF and use the english words in the missal? Thanks.

George said...

Stop giving money--any money--to the VII church or anything associated with it. That's the only way you'll be heard!

Joshua said...

Gratias,

In both the Novus Ordo, and in the old Missal, the general rubric was to kneel from the Sanctus to the Elevation inclusive, then stand for the rest of the canon (in the old Missal this applied only to solemn Mass, and not to Masses celebrated in violet or black...you knelt then)

In many European countries and the US the custom arose of kneeling throughout the whole canon. This was adopted, in the US, as part of our adaptations of the GIRM. The universal GIRM has standing after the elevation, always has. So no innovation or breaking rubrics there.

Donal said...

As maddening as these recent developments are to some, there's the possibility that this pontificate will be viewed as the "good old days" when Pope Dolan is forced upon us. Try to imagine the spectacle on the loggia on that day.

Acreator said...

I learnt from my father to be cautious about people taking about humility, espially their own... At least we now see a pope that make practice of his souvereign power to brake the isntructions given of his Church. But that was maybe not his intention to demonstrate that...

Susan said...

I'm fairly new to this site and to posting comments on it, but I just have to say this to all of you: I am so impressed by the level of knowledge, critical thinking ability, and powers of discernment of the posters here, with only a few exceptions. Most of you, it is apparent, are true, devout Catholics who, at the same time, simply can't bring themselves to slap a Happy Face on developments that are of serious concern. I believe the concerns we have are more than valid. So, we pray for this Pope and hope the Holy Spirit corrects his course.

Meanwhile, though, it's beginning to be apparent to me that some of the persecution we will face will come not from the secular world but from those within our own Church. A priest I know called those who have concerns about this Pope's actions poisonous and uncharitable.

Christ cautioned the Apostles to be as gentle as doves but as wise as serpents. I think many forget the second part of the instruction.

Stephen M said...

We have been given an example in our Pope Benedict: we now have to put into practice what he taught us and look the other way. God is now testing us...have we learned our lessons well? If what we know is the Catholic truth and continue to implement it in our churches and parishes, it will continue to grow and will ultimately prevail. Liberal catholicisn will continue to wither, no matter who sits on the Papal throne. We are not papists but Caholics. God raised up a true leader when we most needed it. Now he is gone, his example remains.

Smile at His Holiness, Pope Francis and let him live his seventies dream, since we now all know how humble he is. Let him have his focus on youth and being young,hip and joyful, and let him hang out with the kids, but let you and I remember where that led us...

Athelstane said...

I have been trying hard to give the Holy Father every benefit of the doubt, to exercise charity in my expectations and interpretation of his exercise of his office. I wanted to wait until he had actually *done* something wrong or ill-advised before criticizing him.

Well, I am very scandalized by this affair. No man, let alone a priest or a bishop, has any business touching or washing the body parts of a woman not his wife, sister, or possibly mother. This was ill-advised. What message is being sent to priests struggling to uphold the law of the Church, and the tradition, in the face of this?

Stranded in Novusordoland said...

@Joshua

Standing after the elevations (or rather from the "Memorial Acclamation" onward) was formerly the practice in my parish and a few other parishes in the area, until the new bishop put a stop to it about six or seven years ago. Then again, at the college I attended (in the same diocese) the pastor had removed the kneelers (we actually were told that there had never been kneelers, but I have it on good authority that this was untrue) and the practice was to stand through the whole canon. When a sizable group of students tried to change that by kneeling anyway, we were ordered to stop. We were admonished that kneeling was discriminatory towards people with disabilities, and that the pope (this was back under JP2) and bishops were going to do away with it "soon," anyway. It took a change of pastors, which happened after I graduated, before kneeling became acceptable there.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it has always been my understanding that the rubrics of the TLM actually make no stipulations regarding the people, only the clergy and the servers. What the people do is purely a matter of local custom.

Robbie said...

A week or so ago, Father Z listed what he thought were the crazy hopes of the liberals for Pope Francis. At the time, I found them somewhat implausible, but no more. Here are three of them.

1. Francis would decide to live somewhere other than the Vatican as a sign he prefers the simple life.

2. Francis would sell the Vatican Museum and donate the profits to the poor.

3. Francis would allow for women to become deacons.

Now, I ask each of you. How crazy are these ideas today? Francis has already decided not to live in the Papal apartments and Cardinal Kasper, a man who Francis cited as a great thinker, proposed women as Deacons just last month.

As I wrote earlier, I think the Church is in for a major revolution. He's already discarded several traditions in short order and Cardinal Hummes, who joined Francis on the loggia, told a Brazilian newspaper celibacy and ordination of women were issues on which Francis would listen.

Hopefully, Francis is not willing to go as far as some of his allies suggest and hope he might be. I would also like to think the Curia will be reluctant to see drastic change, but who knows. If we see Cardinal Burke and Monsignor Marini sent away from the Vatican, we'll likely have our answer.

Jason C. said...

Jason C. said... "When that's accomplished, our focus on unvarnished truth, and beauty in liturgy, etc., will not be viewed suspiciously or prejudicially, but approached for what it is."

To which John replied: Why the false dichotomy? Why do we have to sacrifice truth and beauty for the sake of outreach? Aren't both possible? If they're not, then I have trouble believing this is even Christ's Church at all.

Don't be ridiculous, of course both are possible; truth is beauty, and beauty, truth. There is no dichotomy, but people today are too stupid even to recognize truth or beauty. Some, and I assign the Holy Father to this group, in a quest to reach more people with truth, will skimp on beauty if beauty is incapable of being perceived as beautiful because the perceiver's mind is so deluded that they recognize neither truth nor beauty. Triumphal, exultant Catholicism is not recognized as beautiful to everyone, or even many, these days, especially since the Catholic Church's image has been so tarnished by her own acts and omissions. In fact, beauty has the opposite effect on these people, and is seen as outward decadence of an inwardly hypocritical and corrupt institution--to them, it is a tiara on a sedia gestatoria filled with dead men's bones. It is a stumbling block. A shepherd who has left the 99 behind to go after the 1 (actually, it's more like leave the 1 behind to go after the 99...) must approach it circumspectly, and with patience, even perhaps circling around behind it, stayed downwind, and disguising his approach---the lost sheep of today's are really, really spooked, and can't tell the lions from the shepherds. Truth and beauty are lost on so many.

Doesn't this state of affairs require a somewhat different approach to evangelization? A post-Christian pagan world is far different than a pagan world--they have already accepted, and then rejected, what we are selling: truth and beauty. So I won't begrudge our shepherd, the Holy Father, the effort, as ridiculous and contemptible as I think he might look, or as much as his actions might embolden the lions in chasubules in many of our parishes; I will just trust in Christ's promise that THE shepherd won't tell the sheep something erroneous in his quests to catch them.

William said...

The Pope is the supreme legislator of the Church, and as such has the power to make such laws, canonical and liturgical, as he sees fit, provided only that he cannot alter the depositum of the Faith.

He could therefore have changed the requirement that those having their feet washed should be viri. (I'm not saying that it would have been a good idea – just that he had the power to do so.)

But instead of changing the law, he has chosen to break the law, as publicly as possible. The law remains as it was, but the lawmaker thinks he can decide for himself whether or not to abide by it.

If the Pope will not obey the law of the Church – why should anybody else?

Jon said...

Donal,

Say what you want about Dolan (and I'd probably agree), but certainly I'd prefer this to what we have.

http://www4.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Timothy+Dolan+Installed+Archbishop+New+York+2vzxNdA1vbFl.jpg

Judge Douglass Bartley said...

In the United States, we have an secular institution that is constantly breaking law and tradition. Please see "A Confusion of Tongues at the Supreme Court Tower of Babble” regarding the insipid proceedings of Tuesday and Wednesday on the legitimacy of “gay marriage”. To go to the site containing the article, click on my name above.

Gary said...

The Telegraph's sub-heading says it all:

Pope Francis continued his gleeful abandonment of tradition by washing the feet of a young Muslim women prisoner in an unprecedented twist on the Holy Thursday tradition.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/9960168/Pope-washes-feet-of-young-woman-Muslim-prisoner-in-unprecedented-twist-on-Maundy-Thursday.html

Feed His lambs. NOW! said...

NO ONE is more poor, more downtrodden than a Traditional (read REAL) Catholic. Until they are fed, clothed and housed again in the churches that THEIR pious ancestors PAID FOR...I don't want to hear about "social justice" and "the poor". BAH!

Alexander said...

"The group of 12 young people who had their feet washed and kissed by the pope included two young women - the first time a pope included females in the rite. The ceremony has traditionally been limited to men, since all of Jesus' apostles were men.
The young people were aged between 16 and 21 and chosen from different nationalities and religious backgrounds - including two Muslims, according to a Vatican spokesman."

It just gets worse.

RipK said...

Our Holy Brother Francis went to Casal del Marmo today on a black Volkswagen Phaenton. I think a Beetle may have been more appropriate for him. Probably next year...

http://theratzingerforum.yuku.com/sreply/69127/Conclave-2013-The-successor-of-Benedict-XVI

Ashamed said...

As a woman I want to report to all here that I was once forced into one of these footwashing events. It was during my time of imprisonment in NovusOrdoland. The recent catechumens and their sponsors were made to be in the Sanctuary sitting on chairs right in front of the real Altar. I was so horrified. I had no business being part of that and I knew it. It was not edifying. It was humiliating and shameful.

Today I would not have allowed this. Then? Then I was just a dumb, trusting sheep.

John said...

Jason C said... "In fact, beauty has the opposite effect on these people, and is seen as outward decadence of an inwardly hypocritical and corrupt institution--to them, it is a tiara on a sedia gestatoria filled with dead men's bones."

No one, not even the Pope, through any act of condescension, can force a broken person to acknowledge beauty that is right before his eyes.

The Church must tend the plants and scatter the seeds as she always has done. But preparing the soil is the Holy Spirit's business, and not every heart is made of good soil.

We do not scatter dandelion seeds just because they'll grow anywhere. We scatter the wheat of a good harvest, which Christ has given us.

The Church should continue being the Church as she always has been. Don't forget that the Church includes all those who have gone before; how do they feel about our changing the practices and norms that helped them to achieve holiness?

If only the Archpastor were more concerned about the disheartened and despondent members of his flock than about appeasing the wolves of worldly intentions and concerns.

Alexander said...

RipK

"Our Holy Brother Francis went to Casal del Marmo today on a black Volkswagen Phaenton. I think a Beetle may have been more appropriate for him. Probably next year..."

I think next year it will be a 5 years old KIA. Or maybe they can find a Yugo.

Anonymous said...

Pope Urban VI?

John said...

John C said... "Doesn't this state of affairs require a somewhat different approach to evangelization? A post-Christian pagan world is far different than a pagan world--they have already accepted, and then rejected, what we are selling: truth and beauty."

No, I don't think so.

How did the Church originally convert the pagans? By being the Church and preaching the truth.

And yes, it took bold actions. St. Boniface of Mainz felled the holy oaks. St. Willibrord of Utrecht slaughtered and ate the pagans' sacred cattle.

I'm not saying destroy property. I'm saying our bold moves must boldly proclaim the truth even more boldly than ordinary preaching.

+Francis has made a lot of bold moves in only two weeks. But I don't see how they promote the truth. I see them making people comfortable in their present circumstances, rather than calling them to something greater.

Francis in Ma said...

Bergoglio is bad news!! Yes, I've said about 25 times already on RC, yet Bergoglio keeps doing things that makes me repeat myself. This is only the beginning my friends of the modernist apostasy this man will put on Holy Mother Church.

TradCath9 said...

The crap just hit the fan. Dear Lord...

Malta said...

Listen, women have a role in the Church that men could never fulfill; think of Mary, Mother of God!

I pray to her daily.

But Christ didn't wash the feet of women for a reason, just as there's a reason I can't birth children (at least not yet!)

It's not about sexism; it's about what IS God's plan for different genders?

I have four daughters, and would bathe them, clothe them and wash their feet (actually, not really, my wife did most of that!) But you get my point!

I just think it's unseemly to break with Christ's tradition of confirming (in a sense) the first Apostles (Bishops) of the Church by washing the feet of Muslim youth and girls. It's just strange, in my opinion!

Anonymous said...

"Pope Francis has managed to do more damage in 2 weeks than any Pope in the Church's history."

I couldn't agree more.

Anon777


Matthew said...

Dear priests,

Now would be the time to join the SSPX.

Oreoman said...

PAPA Tango

IS He getting us READY FOR The next BOMB SHELL women clery!

beng said...

It is confirmed everywhere that there are two girls. One Catholic and one Serbian moslem. There was also another moslem boy.

So, of the twelve there are two moslems. One boy, one girls.

Anonymous said...

Can someone explain why that is wrong?

Ordinariate priest.

An Unfortunate Sinner said...

I'm one of those who is still suspicious about the Pope. Frankly, I think footwashing has become a cause in itself and way too political a statement, just like wearing a mantilla to Mass. We used to do it and not give it a second thought. Now if you do, people think you're holier than thou. But maybe sometimes we misunderstand some of the Pope's actions. I could be wrong, but perhaps the Pope is using this as a teachable moment for these kids. This text for his homily at the prison is as follows:

“This is moving, Jesus washes the feet of his disciples. Peter understands nothing. He refuses but Jesus explains to him. Jesus, God did this, and He Himself explains it to the disciples.. ‘Do you realize what I have done for you? You call me ‘teacher’ and ‘master,’ and rightly so, for indeed I am. If I, therefore, the master and teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash one another’s feet. I have given you a model to follow, so that as I have done for you, you should also do’.

It is the example set by Our Lord, it’s important for Him to wash their feet, because among us the one who is highest up must be at the service of others. This is a symbol, it is a sign – washing your feet means I am at your service. And we are too, among each other, but we don’t have to wash each other’s feet each day. So what does this mean? That we have to help each other…sometimes I would get angry with one someone, but we must let it go and if they ask a favor of do it!

Help one another. This is what Jesus teaches us. This is what I do. And I do it with my heart. I do this with my heart because it is my duty, as a priest and bishop I must be at your service. But it is a duty that comes from my heart and a duty I love. I love doing it because this is what the Lord has taught me. But you too must help us and help each other, always. And thus in helping each other we will do good for each other.

Now we will perform the ceremony of the Washing of the Feet and we must each one of us think, Am I really willing to help others? Just think of that. Think that this sign is Christ’s caress, because Jesus came just for this, to serve us, to help us”.

Poor Yorek said...

William said...
The Pope is the supreme legislator of the Church, and as such has the power to make such laws, canonical and liturgical, as he sees fit, provided only that he cannot alter the depositum of the Faith.

He could therefore have changed the requirement that those having their feet washed should be viri. (I'm not saying that it would have been a good idea – just that he had the power to do so.)

But instead of changing the law, he has chosen to break the law, as publicly as possible. The law remains as it was, but the lawmaker thinks he can decide for himself whether or not to abide by it.

If the Pope will not obey the law of the Church – why should anybody else?


Concur.

Pancho said...

Personal thoughts/questions regarding the washing of the feet before the Last Supper …

What is the basis for continuing this tradition: Because it has been practiced for so long; because it is governed by (fixed) dogma or because it is based upon custom and/or upon prudence?

Recalling the washing of the feet took place before the institution of both the Eucharist and the Priesthood, what was the significance of Our Lord’s washing the feet of His Disciples at that moment? Was the basic “message” that of God’s coming to serve (all) His creatures; the Master coming to serve (all) His followers; to teach (future) priests to serve (all) those under their care?

How was this (“message”) understood in that time by those who witnessed it – or saw it repeated? While there certainly is a long tradition of only men’s feet being washed, is there a Catholic dogma specifically (gender) related to the washing of only men’s feet on Holy Thursday that would prevent this age-old tradition from being changed to including even women? In other words, is washing only men’s feet an unchangeable “Tradition” or a “tradition” that can admit certain prudent changes related (for example) to the changing world in which it is practiced and how it will be interpreted at a particular time in history. In other words, is it based upon “tradition” or dogma?

Is it something that will open Pope Francis to a rebuke as that given Pope Peter by Paul?
Paul Confronts Peter - Galatians 2:11-13
11 But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was very wrong. 12 When he first arrived, he ate with the Gentile Christians, who were not circumcised. But afterward, when some friends of James came, Peter wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles anymore. He was afraid of criticism from these people who insisted on the necessity of circumcision. 13 As a result, other Jewish Christians followed Peter’s hypocrisy, and even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.
One thing is certain: Jesus knew all Peter would do and still anointed him as His Vicar. Peter remained Pope

Malta said...

And, should we really get so upset about gay "marriage"? Shouldn't we know that the weight of popular opinion, modernistic protestant Americanism, and a metrosexual president would slowly lead here?

It's like when I was still an atheist, went to Jamaica with my then girlfriend, and decided to "marry" after drinking Red Stripe beer. Was that a Sacrament in any sense of the word?

I believe most "marriages" are not Sacramental in any sense of the word.

Lose the heart-burn; gay "marriage" is coming your way!

Just go to Las Vegas; there's drive-through "marriage" and divorce--just makes things easier!

BJ said...

He washed the bare foot of a young muslim girl? Is this allowed by islam??? Will the girl's father now behead her??? This is dangerous!!!!! How could it be allowed?! What were they thinking???

beng said...

Video of the washing

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/pope-washes-feet-at-juvenile-detention-center-video

Gregorian Mass said...

Is there any liturgical law this Pope will respect? I guess Priests no longer have to follow rubrics and the GIRM is now moot...And the lay Faithful may choose what suits them and what does not. Very good lessons this Pontificate teaches. What is crystal clear so far in this Pontificate is that the Pope favors one group of people and ignores the sensibilites of some others. Hardly humble.

irulats said...

It's all beginning to make sense now why Pope Francis asked God to forgive the Cardinals who elected him and why they all burst into laughter when he said it. He also said he was going to sleep well that night and that he was certain a lot of them would too. This statement also got cheers of laughter. I hope God will forgive them and me too!